State v. Collins
Decision Date | 11 October 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 51237,No. 1,51237,1 |
Citation | 394 S.W.2d 368 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jesse Franklin COLLINS, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Richard G. Altobelli, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
William H. Webster, Richard J. Sheehan, St. Louis, for appellant.
Defendant was charged by indictment with the unlawful sale of a narcotic drug. See Secs. 195.020 and 195.200. (All statutory references are to RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S.). An information, substituted for the indictment, charged prior felony convictions under the provisions of Sec. 556.280. A jury found defendant guilty and the court fixed his punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment.
Upon defendant's appeal to this court we found no trial errors but, because the court failed to make a required finding (imprisonment) to show that the habitual criminal statute was applicable, we reversed and remanded the case with directions to the court 'to cause the defendant to be brought before it to hold a hearing on the issue of the applicability of the habitual criminal statute of defendant and if proved that, after being sentenced on his former conviction, he was either placed on probation, paroled, fined or imprisoned therefor, to pronounce sentence and judgment against defendant taking all proper procedural steps required therefor by law and the rules of this court but in the alternative if the habitual criminal statute be found inapplicable to the defendant to grant him a new trial on all issues.' State v. Collins, Mo.Sup., 383 S.W.2d 747, 752.
In accordance with our mandate the court held a hearing at which the State offered (and the court admitted) a certified copy of a judgment of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri (Exhibit 1) which recited that Jesse Collins had been convicted upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of possession and sale of heroin, a derivative of opium, and he was sentenced (on January 18, 1951), to five years' imprisonment on each offense with said sentences to run concurrently. Also admitted was Exhibit 2, a certificate of the Records Control Supervisor of the Federal Detention Headquarters, New York, New York, which recited the following concerning Jesse Collins: 'Sentence, five years; Court, U. S. District--Eastern Missouri; Date of sentence, January 18, 1951; When received, January 25, 1951; Expiration of sentence, August 9, 1954; Discharged, August 9, 1954.' A similar certified record, which was admitted, contained two photographs of the prisoner, Jesse Collins--one taken July 11, 1951, and the other July 21, 1954.
The State also offered the testimony of the arresting officer, Louis Schmidt, who testified that he had known Jesse Franklin Collins since 1948. He further testified as follows: And on cross-examination concerning the quoted admissions he stated: '
Defendant offered no evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that
After defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled the court again sentenced defendant to imprisonment for a term of fifteen years (with allowance for all time previously served). Defendant has duly appealed from that sentence.
At the hearing defendant contended that the testimony of the officer as to the admissions of defendant concerning his prior convictions and imprisonment should not have been considered because such was in conflict with the holding in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977. The trial court ruled that Escobedo did not apply because the admissions did not establish a crime but related solely to past history concerning previous convictions and imprisonment. The first contention on this appeal is that the court erred in that ruling.
In Escobedo defendant had employed counsel before his arrest. After his arrest he was interrogated by the police. His request to consult with his lawyer was denied. At the request of defendant's mother the attorney went to the police station and his request to see defendant was denied. The police did not advise defendant of his right to remain silent. The court held that a confession obtained under those circumstances was in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights and was not admissible. In the case at bar defendant would have us extend the Escobedo rule by holding that no admissions may be used unless a defendant has first been advised of his right to counsel and his absolute right to remain silent. The case of People v. Dorado, Cal., 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361, so held in excluding a confession of guilt in regard to the offense with which that defendant was subsequently charged. A contrary holding appears in State v. Scanlon, 84 N.J.Super. 427, 202 A.2d 448.
We will not expand the Escobedo ruling beyond the facts of that case. In the case before us there was no request for an attorney and defendant made no confession of guilt as to the offense charged. He merely admitted his prior convictions and imprisonment. We rule that the fact that he was not advised as to his right to counsel and his right to remain silent did not render those statements inadmissible.
The conviction, sentence, and imprisonment of Jesse Collins was proved by State's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3. For a number of reasons hereinafter discussed defendant contends that court erred in admitting those exhibits. It is first said that there was no competent evidence to show that defendant, Jesse Franklin Collins, is the same person as the Jesse Collins referred to in the foregoing exhibits. We have held that identity of names...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Aston, 51987
...will not expand the holding of Escobedo beyond its stated facts, and we again so rule. State v. Howard, Mo., 383 S.W.2d 701; State v. Collins, Mo., 394 S.W.2d 368; State v. Dixon, Mo., 411 S.W.2d 185, decided February 13, 1967. In this situation we consider the 'totality of the circumstance......
-
State v. Wait, 1462--I
...necessarily were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In re Caffey, 68 Cal.2d 762, 69 Cal.Rptr. 93, 441 P.2d 933 (1968); State v. Collins, 394 S.W.2d 368 (Mo.1965); See Collins v. Swenson, D.C., 331 F.Supp. 1109 (E.D.Mo.1971); People v. Serrano, 13 App.Div.2d 549, 213 N.Y.S.2d 112 (1961). Alth......
-
State v. Crawford
...to consult with a lawyer, and he was advised of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent. We said in State v. Collins, Mo., 394 S.W.2d 368, 371(1) that 'We will not expand the Escobedo ruling beyond the facts of that case * * *;' the facts of Escobedo are not present in this Evide......
-
Collins v. State
...State v. Collins, Mo.Sup., 383 S.W.2d 747. Upon a second appeal following such proceedings, the judgment was affirmed. State v. Collins, Mo.Sup., 394 S.W.2d 368. On this appeal, from denial of relief after an evidentiary hearing, appellant asserts three grounds for relief. The first is that......