State v. Jackson, 49821
| Decision Date | 14 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 49821,No. 2,49821,2 |
| Citation | 371 S.W.2d 309 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lewis Elbert JACKSON, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Lee Vertis Swinton, Kansas City, for appellant.
Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., Paul N. Chitwood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Lewis Elbert Jackson was found guilty by a jury of robbery in the first degree. Section 560.120, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S. After finding that the defendant had previously been convicted and sentenced for the offenses of burglary and grand larceny, as alleged in the amended information, punishment was fixed by the trial judge at imprisonment for twenty-five years. Sentence and judgment followed, and defendant has appealed to this court.
Defendant has filed no brief in this court. In this situation we review all assignments of error properly preserved in the motion for new trial. A brief summary of the facts which a jury reasonably could find from the evidence will suffice.
On May 12, 1962 William R. Raymond was assaulted and knocked down by two men, one of whom was the defendant. Raymond attempted to escape and ran into the hallway of an apartment building but defendant and his companion followed him and continued to assault him. Raymond was knocked to the floor, and by reason of the vicious beating and stomping administered by defendant and his companion, he was caused to lose an eye. Between seventy and seventy-five dollars was taken from Raymond's person.
The motion for new trial contains three assignments. The first is, 'Because the court erred in giving instruction No. 2 over the objection of the defendant.' This assignment is totally inadequate to preserve anything for appellate review under Supreme Court Rule 27.20, V.A.M.R. It fails to set forth with particularity the specific reason why it is contended the instruction is erroneous. See State v. Martin, Mo., 347 S.W.2d 680; State v. Brewer, Mo., 338 S.W.2d 863.
The second assignment is, 'Because there is no evidence adduced from the witness that the defendant had any of the money allegedly taken in the robbery.' It is not known who is referred to by 'the witness.' Four witnesses testified. The evidence clearly authorized a finding by the jury that defendant and another person assaulted and robbed William R. Raymond of seventy to seventy-five dollars. The following day when defendant was arrested he had only a few dollars on his person. This was a factual matter which could be argued to the jury on the issue of defendant's guilt, but the fact that there was no proof that at the time of his arrest he had in his possession some of the money taken from Raymond does not constitute a defense as a matter of law. This assignment is without merit.
The third and last assignment is, 'That the punishment assessed by the court is excessive.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Washington
...the verdict finding the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree. State v. Pope, Mo., 364 S.W.2d 564, 565-566; State v. Jackson, Mo., 371 S.W.2d 309, 310; State v. Hood, Mo., 313 S.W.2d 661, 663. The court did not err in failing to direct a verdict of Next the defendant contends that......
-
State v. Bibee
...assessed is excessive,' it presents nothing for appellate review there the punishment is within the statutory limits. State v. Jackson, 371 S.W.2d 309, 310(4) (Mo.1963). The Courts of Missouri have repeatedly approved sentences of 25 years for robbery in the first degree, with a dangerous a......
-
State v. Malone, 50246
...v. Thompson, Mo.Sup., 299 S.W.2d 468; State v. Jacobs, Mo.Sup., 321 S.W.2d 450; State v. Hood, Mo.Sup., 313 S.W.2d 661; State v. Jackson, Mo.Sup., 371 S.W.2d 309; State v. Gray, Mo.Sup., 360 S.W.2d 642; and State v. Velanti, Mo.Sup., 331 S.W.2d Our duty in this situation is to examine those......
-
State v. Johnson, s. 54742
...State v. Westfall, Mo., 367 S.W.2d 593. Punishment imposed within the statutory limits presents nothing for appellate review. State v. Jackson, Mo., 371 S.W.2d 309. The other two cases cited by defendant on this point are not from our Missouri Appellate Courts and since the Missouri law is ......