State v. Hamilton, 51036
| Decision Date | 12 July 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 51036,51036,2 |
| Citation | 391 S.W.2d 872 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Artura Winifred HAMILTON, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Ben Ely, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
Gwendolyn M. Wells, Kansas City, for appellant.
This is an appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of twelve years.
The jury returned its verdict on June 16, 1964. On that same date, on application of counsel for defendant, the court granted thirty days from June 16, 1964, to file motion for a new trial. Thereafter on July 17, 1964, a motion for new trial was filed. It was taken up and overruled on August 24, 1964, and on that same date an appeal was taken to this court.
Rule 27.20(a), V.A.M.R., requires that motions for new trial in criminal cases be filed within ten days after the verdict is returned, with the proviso that the court may extend the time on application for a maximum of thirty additional days. The transcript in this case discloses that on June 16, 1964, the court entered an order granting a total of thirty days from June 16, 1964, in which to file a motion for new trial. That extended the time to and including July 16, 1964. No application for a further extension was made. Then on July 17, 1964, a motion for new trial was filed. We have held repeatedly that compliance with Rule 27.20(a) is mandatory and that a motion for new trial not filed in conformity therewith is a nullity and preserves nothing for review. We are precluded from consideration of matters required to be preserved in a motion for new trial. State v. Franklin, Mo., 379 S.W.2d 526; State v. Parker, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 923, and State v. Kenton, Mo., 298 S.W.2d 433. The motion for new trial herein was not filed in accordance with the Rule.
No brief on behalf of defendant was filed in this court but the transcript discloses that defendant was represented ably throughout the trial and in all after-trial proceedings in the Circuit Court by an attorney of his selection.
Pursuant to Rule 28.02, V.A.M.R., we have reviewed those matters therein enumerated, for which assignments in a motion for new trial are not necessary, and we find no error. The information is sufficient, the verdict is in order, the punishment fixed was within the statutory limits, defendant was accorded allocution and the judgment is in proper form.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moore
...785 (Mo. banc 1976); State v. White, 439 S.W.2d 752, 753 (Mo.1969); State v. Olinger, 396 S.W.2d 617, 621 (Mo.1965); and State v. Hamilton, 391 S.W.2d 872 (Mo.1965). Defendant's only hope for salvaging the three points for appellate review is to bring them under the benevolent auspices of t......
-
State v. Barrett
...In any event the appellant's motion for a new trial was not filed until December 24, 1964, which obviously was not timely. State v. Hamilton, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 872. However, even if it may be said that there was some ambiguity and the appellant was in fact given forty days in which to file hi......
-
State v. White
...motion for new trial actually was filed on December 15, 1968. Accordingly, it is a nullity and preserves nothing for review. State v. Hamilton, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 872. We do, however, consider the point raised in defendant's brief on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to make a submissi......
-
State v. Powell
...for filing a motion for new trial beyond that provided in Supreme Court Rule 27.20(a), V.A.M.R. Its provisions are mandatory. State v. Hamilton, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 872; State v. Crow, Mo., 388 S.W.2d Appellant claims plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights for the asserted reason ......