State v. Debert

• Decision Date: 04 October 1943
• Docket Number: 38658
• Citation: 174 S.W.2d 205
• Parties: STATE v. DEBER
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

174 S.W.2d 205

STATE v. DEBER

No. 38658

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

October 4, 1943

Peter Cosmas and Oliver M. Collins, both of St. Louis, for appellant.

Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and Leo A. Politte, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

OPINION

WESTHUES, Commissioner.

Raymond Debert was charged in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, Missouri, with the crime of robbery in the first degree by means of a deadly weapon. In addition to that charge the information alleged that the defendant had been previously convicted had served a sentence in the penitentiary and had been discharged therefrom. Upon a trial the jury found defendant guilty of robbery as charged and also that he had previously convicted, had served a sentence. The jury assessed his punishment at life imprisonment. Being unsuccessful in obtaining a new trial, an appeal was taken from the judgment imposed. The motion for new trial contains only one assignment of error. It reads as follows: 'Now comes Raymond De Bert, Defendant in the above entitled cause, by his attorney, Peter Cosmas, and prays for a new trial on the ground that the verdict in the above entitled cause is contrary to the law or evidence.'

The evidence introduced by the state disclosed that appellant and another man, on January 28, 1942, entered a drug store located at 1303 Veronica street in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and informed the man in charge, 'This is a stick-up, take it easy.' Appellant had a gun and ordered that the cash register be opened. Appellant's companion took about sixty dollars from the register and departed. The state also showed that appellant had previously been convicted and had served a ten year sentence in the Missouri penitentiary, from which sentence he was discharged on November 24, 1941. The verdict of the jury was therefore justified and supported by substantial evidence.

We have examined the record proper. The information is in legal form. Appellant was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty, a jury was duly empaneled and sworn to try the case, a trial was had and a verdict of guilty returned. The motion for new trial was filed and overruled. Allocution and sentence followed. No error appearing in the record the judgment is affirmed.

BOHLING and BARRETT, CC., concur.

Per Curiam. The foregoing opinion by WESTHUES C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

All concur.