State v. Campbell, 012120 MOCAS, SD36021

Docket Nº:SD36021
Opinion Judge:JEFFREY W. BATES, C.J.
Party Name:STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT L. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J., MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. CONCURS.
Case Date:January 21, 2020
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT L. CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. SD36021

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division

January 21, 2020

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY Honorable Gayle L. Crane, Circuit Judge

JEFFREY W. BATES, C.J.

Robert Campbell (Defendant), a self-represented litigant, seeks to appeal a second time from the convictions and sentences imposed at his criminal trial in September 2016. The purported basis for this second appeal is that the written judgment was corrected, nunc pro tunc, to conform to the actual oral pronouncement of Defendant's sentences at trial. According to Defendant, this correction constituted an amended judgment that gave him the right to appeal again. Because the nunc pro tunc correction of the written judgment to conform to the oral pronouncement of sentences is not a new judgment, we have no statutory authority to act and must dismiss this attempted second appeal by Defendant. Our decision arises from the following events.

On September 12, 2016, Defendant was convicted of two counts of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on each count. The trial judge ordered that the sentences run consecutively. That same month, Defendant appealed from that judgment. This Court affirmed the judgment containing Defendant's convictions and sentences via summary order and statement in State v. Campbell, SD34647 (Mo. App. filed February 7, 2018).

Defendant filed a timely Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion.1 Insofar as relevant here, the third claim posited that the sentences in the written judgment did not conform to the oral pronouncements by the trial judge. The record revealed that the sentencing court (which was the same as the motion court) orally pronounced a sentence of "a term of life" on each count, "[t]o run consecutive." The written judgment incorrectly stated that the length of the second sentence was "999 Years" instead of life in prison as orally pronounced by the court. On December 27, 2018, the motion court entered its order: (1) denying post-conviction relief; and (2) directing that the written judgment be corrected nunc pro tunc.2 The...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP