State v. Gillispie, s. 16405
Decision Date | 11 June 1990 |
Docket Number | 16628,Nos. 16405,s. 16405 |
Citation | 790 S.W.2d 519 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dewayne GILLISPIE, Defendant-Appellant. Dewayne GILLISPIE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Janet M. Thompson, Columbia, for defendant-appellant, and movant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent.
The two-count information in this case charged defendant, 1 in violation of § 570.120, RSMo, 2 with commission of two class D felonies of passing bad checks. The information charged this offense occurred by defendant, with the purpose to defraud, passing a $400.00 check and a $675.00 check to Tri County State Bank, drawn on a non-existent account with Landmark KCI Bank. The case was tried to the court on June 18, 1987, and defendant was found guilty on both counts. A presentence investigation was ordered and sentencing was scheduled for July 20, 1987. On July 20, 1987, the defendant did not appear. His bond was forfeited and a capias warrant was issued. On May 18, 1989, defendant appeared and was sentenced to two years in the Department of Corrections on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently.
On appeal, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of intent to defraud and also claims the trial court committed plain error in certain rulings on evidence.
Defendant sought post-conviction relief by filing a timely motion under Rule 29.15, in which defendant claimed: (a) the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in sentencing because Count II, "Attempt[ing] to Pass [a] Bad Check," is a misdemeanor, and Count I, "Passing [a] Bad Check under $150," is a misdemeanor; (b) the trial court failed to credit all time served by the defendant, and (c) the trial court failed to place proper value on the check as prescribed by Missouri statutes. The trial court returned findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment denying defendant's request for post-conviction relief.
Defendant's appeal from the trial court's denial of relief under Rule 29.15 was consolidated with his appeal of the conviction. The State has, by motion and by the first point in its brief, sought dismissal of defendant's conviction appeal on the ground that defendant forfeited his right to appeal that judgment by failing to appear for sentencing and remaining at large for approximately 21 months after the date he was to appear for sentencing. The court agrees with that contention and will dismiss the conviction appeal for that reason.
The "escape rule" was first applied in Missouri in State v. Carter, 98 Mo. 431, 11 S.W. 979 (1889). The rule operates to deny the right of appeal to one, who, following conviction, has attempted to escape justice. State v. Wright, 763 S.W.2d 167, 168 (Mo.App.1988). This court has applied the rule, saying:
"Missouri has long had the rule that a defendant who escapes or flees the jurisdiction of its courts either during trial or in the process of post-trial proceedings forfeits his rights to an appeal upon the merits of the cause." ... In one form or another, this principle is recognized by most courts, including the United States Supreme Court.
State v. Kearns, 743 S.W.2d 553, 554 (Mo.App.1987). Defendants have been found to have forfeited their right to appeal by failure to appear for sentencing as in Wright, supra, and Kearns, supra. Appeals have been dismissed where defendant was ordered to appear after sentencing but before the merits of the appeal had been reached by the appellate court. State v. Peck, 652 S.W.2d 244, 245 (Mo.App.1983).
Defendant is correct in his claim that not every disappearance, of whatever duration and under all circumstances, results in forfeiture of the right to appeal. Kearns, supra, at 555. However, the various reasons given in Wright, supra, for the development of the escape rule compels this court to find that defendant, in this case, has forfeited his right to appeal his conviction. In Wright, the court applied the escape rule to dismiss the appeal of defendant, who had been a fugitive from justice for 5 1/2 months. In Wright, the court noted that:
Those who seek the protection of this legal system must, however, be willing to abide by its rules and decisions. ... She may not selectively abide by the decisions of the courts.
State v. Wright, 763 S.W.2d at 168-69. Also see Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498-99, 24 L.Ed.2d 586, 588 (1970), where the court held "[E]scape ... disentitles the defendant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hicks v. State
...free pending sentencing, willfully failed to appear for sentencing. State v. Woods, 812 S.W.2d 267, 268 (Mo.App.1991); State v. Gillispie, 790 S.W.2d 519 (Mo.App.1990). Unlike the situation in Carter, in which the defendant remained at large, the rule now applies even though a defendant has......
-
State v. Barnard
...error as to the denial of the 29.15 motion, Barnard has abandoned his 29.15 appeal and the 29.15 appeal is dismissed. State v. Gillispie, 790 S.W.2d 519, 520 (Mo.App.1990); State v. Mayo, 784 S.W.2d 897 Barnard's first point on direct appeal claims that the trial court erred in admitting, o......
-
State v. Simpson
...every disappearance, of whatever duration and under all circumstances, results in forfeiture of the right to appeal." State v. Gillispie, 790 S.W.2d 519, 520 (Mo.App.1990). See Sinclair v. State, 708 S.W.2d 333 (Mo.App.1986), where we held an attempted escape did not invoke the escape rule.......
-
State v. Huse
...of his Rule 29.15 motion. Having raised no claim of error regarding such denial, Defendant's appeal is abandoned. State v. Gillispie, 790 S.W.2d 519, 520 (Mo.App.1990). Defendant's appeal from denial of his Rule 29.15 motion (No. 18002) is dismissed. The judgment of the trial court is affir......
-
Section 31.35 Appeals
...post-conviction relief as well as the appeal of its denial. Sanders v. State, 790 S.W.2d 497 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990); State v. Gillispie, 790 S.W.2d 519, 520 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990). Review of the court of appeals’ decision is possible, but a transfer to the Supreme Court of Missouri is discretio......