State v. Haslip, 10623

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Citation583 S.W.2d 225
Docket NumberNo. 10623,10623
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Stephen Greg HASLIP, Appellant.
Decision Date04 June 1979

Page 225

583 S.W.2d 225
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
Stephen Greg HASLIP, Appellant.
No. 10623.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.
June 4, 1979.
Motion for Rehearing or to Transfer to Supreme Court Denied
June 27, 1979.
Application to Transfer Denied July 17, 1979.

Page 226

John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Neil MacFarlane, Steven D. Steinhilber, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Ralph E. Baird, Joplin, for appellant; Douglas Hamilton, Joplin, of counsel.

TITUS, Judge.

Charged under the Second Offender Act (§ 556.280) 1 with first degree murder (§ 559.010), defendant was jury convicted thereof. Presumably because defendant and his trial attorney became estranged after the verdict was rendered and, as defendant

Page 227

said, "he don't work for me no more," no motion for a new trial was filed. Also, before allocution was afforded, judgment rendered and sentence pronounced (Rule 27.09), the trial judge went out of office and defendant acquired new counsel. A special judge was assigned "to perform the duties to be performed by the court under these rules after a verdict is returned." Rule 79.01; cf. State v. Hopkins, 573 S.W.2d 744, 745 (Mo.App.1978). Upon affording allocution, the special judge sentenced defendant to life imprisonment as mandated by § 559.030. Defendant appealed.

Since no motion for a new trial was filed, our review of grounds asserted by defendant on appeal should be limited to consideration of plain errors affecting substantial rights. Rule 27.20(c); State v. Collett, 542 S.W.2d 783, 785(1) (Mo. banc 1976). Of course, as defendant complains in one of his points relied on, if the state failed to make a submissible case, then plain error resulted. State v. Covington, 559 S.W.2d 78, 79(1) (Mo.App.1977). Therefore, we will review that point premised upon appellate rules that the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict (State v. Hegwood, 558 S.W.2d 378, 379(1) (Mo.App.1977)) and that the jury had leave to believe or disbelieve all, part or none of the testimony of any witness. State v. Davis, 556 S.W.2d 745, 747(2) (Mo.App.1977).

The dead body of Lee Coquillette was found in his mobile home in Joplin near 2 a. m. May 17, 1974. Death was caused by a shotgun wound inflicted at close range. Outside the trailer was found a live .16 gauge shotgun shell and a .16 gauge shotgun containing a spent shell. The evidence indicated the shotgun had been fired through an opened jalousie window and screen while Coquillette was apparently in the process of watering houseplants. Albeit he could not make positive identification, a special F.B.I. agent who examined a plaster cast made of a boot print found outside the trailer, opined the print was most similar to one of defendant's boots which defendant had asked a friend to take and "go swimming with them." Instead of disposing of the boots as directed, the recipient gave the boots to authorities who had comparisons made between them and the cast. The state, at the trial, produced a witness who asserted defendant had recounted that he had killed Coquillette with a shotgun while the victim was in his trailer watering plants. Another witness called by the state testified that in conversations overheard between defendant and one Bebee, defendant "said he shot (this man) with a shotgun." We rule this evidence was sufficient to submit defendant's innocence or guilt to the jury. Cf. State v. Higdon, 356 Mo. 1058, 1060, 204 S.W.2d 754, 755(1) (banc 1947). (This covers point VII in defendant's brief).

Another point (Number I) advanced by defendant is that the "Court erred in pronouncing judgment and sentence upon the Appellant for the reason that the prosecution was barred by the 'Agreement on Detainers' (V.A.M.S. Section 222.160) in that the Appellant had been returned to the Federal custody prior to being tried in violation of Article IV, Paragraph 5, of the Agreement." Defendant's first three appearances in the Missouri courts were caused via writs of habeas corpus Ad prosequendum while defendant was incarcerated in the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri; the last two such writs issued when defendant was imprisoned in the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas. In State ex rel. Stanley v. Davis, 569 S.W.2d 202, 210 (Mo.App.1978) it was held that the Agreement on Detainers "is not applicable to the situation where a federal prisoner in Missouri is transferred to a Missouri court for the limited purposes of arraignment, appearances or hearings and then returned to the federal facility in Missouri." But more to the point in this case where defendant's appearances in the Missouri courts were obtained through writs rather than detainers, is the pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 1847, 56 L.Ed.2d 329 (1978): "We therefore conclude that (interstate

Page 228

transfers of prisoners via) a writ of habeas corpus Ad prosequendum is not a detainer for purposes of the Agreement."

We summarily and gratuitously review defendant's other points relied on albeit they were not preserved because no motion for a new trial was filed. "VII. The evidence was insufficient to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. VIII. The Court abused its discretion in refusing Appellant's requested instruction on circumstantial evidence." Initially it is to be noted that these points, although we have previously decided point VII on its merits under the plain error rule, are written in utter disregard of the mandatory requirements of Rule...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Deck v. Jennings, 17-2055
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 19 Octubre 2020
    ...that the Speedy Trial Clause applied to sentencing delays and concluding that a petitioner was not entitled to relief); State v. Haslip , 583 S.W.2d 225, 228–29 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979) (explaining that periods of up to 29 months between conviction and sentencing were not "violative" of a defend......
  • State v. Kelsey, 10723
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 7 Diciembre 1979
    ...Detainers is not applicable. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 361, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 1847, 56 L.Ed.2d 329, 347 (1978); State v. Haslip, 583 S.W.2d 225, 227-228(6) (Mo.App.1979); State ex rel. Stanley v. Davis, 569 S.W.2d 202, 210 A third point relied on reads: "The trial court erred and c......
  • State v. Hollis, KCD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 29 Junio 1979
    ...his right to release has been asserted. State v. Harper, Mo.Sup. en Banc, 473 S.W.2d 419." (Emphasis supplied) See also: State v. Haslip, 583 S.W.2d 225 (Court of Appeals, Southern District, 1979; Hulstine v. State, supra, l. c. Having failed to make such request or assert such right, the d......
  • State v. Charity, 12416
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 7 Julio 1982
    ...not create a duty upon the state to make disclosure under Rule 25.03. State v. Scott, 491 S.W.2d 514 (Mo. banc 1973); State v. Haslip, 583 S.W.2d 225 (Mo.App.1979); State v. Lightle, 210 Kan. 415, 502 P.2d 834 (1972). Compare State v. Polito, 146 N.J.Super. 552, 370 A.2d 478 However, the fa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT