State v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 13 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 48320,No. 1,48320,1 |
| Citation | 344 S.W.2d 72 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Gordon Lee COOPER, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Gordon Lee Cooper, pro se.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Fred L. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant has appealed from an order of the Circuit Court of Butler County dismissing his motion filed under the provisions of S.Ct. Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., to vacate a sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him in said court upon his plea of guilty to the crime of robbery in the first degree by means of a deadly and dangerous weapon.
We have before us a duly certified and approved transcript of the record and proceedings culminating in the judgment and sentence against which defendant's motion to vacate is directed and the proceedings and judgment denying the instant motion to vacate. Defendant has also filed, pro se, a so-called 'statement, abstract of the record, brief and argument' and numerous other pro se compositions. He was also permitted personally to appear and orally argue the merits of his appeal.
By information filed in the Circuit Court of Butler County on June 16, 1953, defendant, then 32 years of age, was charged in due form with robbery in the first degree of one Leonard Landreth by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, as that crime is defined in Section 560.120 and the penalty therefor is fixed by Section 560.135 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. 1 On the same day, the trial judge, in open court, informed defendant of his right to counsel and explained wherein the exercise of that right might be of benefit to him and, after interrogation of defendant, found that he was mentally able and sufficiently informed to decide his need for counsel, and appointed two members of the Butler County Bar as his counsel. See S.Ct. Rule 29.01, V.A.M.R.
Thereafter, on July 6, 1953, the defendant, with both of his court appointed counsel, appeared in open court, at which time, upon inquiry from the court, defendant stated that he had had opportunity to talk to and advise with his court appointed counsel and had done so. The court thereupon explained in detail to defendant the precise nature of the charge set forth in the information and asked defendant: 'What plea do you want to make, guilty or not guilty?' Defendant personally replied, 'I plead guilty.' The prosecuting attorney was then asked if he cared to make a statement, whereupon he replied:
The court then stated to counsel for defendant: '* * *, you have had an opportunity to talk to this man about his case, have you not?'; to which inquiry one of them replied:
The court asked defendant: 'Well, of course, you did commit the crime in question here, did you not?' To which defendant replied: 'Yes, sir.'
The following proceedings next appear:
'Gordon Lee Cooper: No, your Honor.
* * *
* * *
'The court: The record can show sentence and judgment fixed upon the plea of guilty, at imprisonment in the Missouri State Penitentiary for the remainder of the defendant's natural life, where he will be taken by the Sheriff of this County, and delivered to the Warden of that institution there to serve his sentence in accordance with the judgment and sentence of this Court, or until otherwise released by law. * * *'
The record shows entry of formal judgment reciting the essentials of the foregoing proceedings and the imposition of sentence as announced by the court. Defendant was accordingly committed to the State Penitentiary in conformity with the above judgment.
On the _____ day of February, 1960, defendant filed the instant motion to vacate the judgment here under consideration, together with a copy of the information and a warrant issued by the magistrate of Butler County for the arrest of defendant. The motion is quite lengthy. It is entitled 'Defendant's motion to quash the information and set aside the judgment and sentence.' In substance, two contentions are presented:
(1) The information is void and unlawful in that it charges defendant with a capital offense contrary to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United State providing: 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,' etc.
(2) The judgment herein sought to be vacated is void for the reason that the circuit court 'did not have, and could not assume jurisdiction by the Information herein, according to the laws of the State of Missouri, and for the reason that by its unlawful usurpation of jurisdiction herein, movant was and has been denied the right to due process of law, and the equal protection of the law as they are guaranteed in the Missouri and the United States Constitutions.'
On February 26, 1960, the trial court, after having seen the motion and being fully advised in the premises, overruled the motion to quash the information and the motion to set aside the judgment thereon 'because the files and records of this cause show to the satisfaction of the court that the prisoner Gordon Lee Cooper is entitled to no relief.'
The contention that the portion of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Keeble, 51315
...v. Woodward, Mo., 130 S.W.2d 474; State v. Taylor, 362 Mo. 676, 243 S.W.2d 301; State v. Thomas, 353 Mo. 345, 182 S.W.2d 534; State v. Cooper, Mo., 344 S.W.2d 72, cert. denied 368 U.S. 855, 82 S.Ct. 91, 7 L.Ed.2d 52; State v. Smart, Mo., 328 S.W.2d 569; Skiba v. Kaiser, 352 Mo. 424, 178 S.W......
-
State v. Greer
...source of the procedure. See also Beeman v. State, 502 S.W.2d 254 (Mo. 1973); State v. Martin, 395 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. 1965); and State v. Cooper, 344 S.W.2d 72 (Mo.1961). Therefore, if there is merit to appellant's assertion that he was denied equal protection of law, it must be by reason of th......
-
Jefferson v. State
...Maloney, Mo.Supp., 434 S.W.2d 487(12); State v. Testerman, Mo.Sup., 408 S.W.2d 90; State v. Keeble, Mo.Sup., 399 S.W.2d 118; State v. Cooper, Mo.Sup., 344 S.W.2d 72, cert. den. 368 U.S. 855, 82 S.Ct. 91, 7 L.Ed.2d The procedural defects and possible constitutional infirmities in the juvenil......
-
Beeman v. State, 56961
...to state procedure in this regard,' citing Hurtado v. California,110 U.S. 516, 534, 4 S.Ct. 111, 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884), and State v. Cooper,344 S.W.2d 72, 74(1--3) (Mo.1961). The provision of Mo.Const. Art. I, § 17, V.A.M.S., authorizing persons to be prosecuted for felony by indictment or in......