State v. Jalo, s. 15789
| Decision Date | 19 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 15789,16750,s. 15789 |
| Citation | 796 S.W.2d 91 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Vernon Charles JALO, Appellant. Vernon Charles JALO, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Janet M. Thompson, Columbia, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Martin D. Kerckhoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Appellant Vernon Charles Jalo was charged with the class B felony of conspiracy, § 564.016, RSMo 1986, to commit kidnapping and murder. He waived trial by jury, was tried by the court, found guilty as charged, and sentenced as a prior and persistent offender, § 558.016.2 and .3, RSMo 1986, to 20 years' imprisonment. He brings appeal 15789 from that judgment and sentence.
Following the conviction, appellant commenced a proceeding under Rule 29.15 1 to vacate the conviction. An evidentiary hearing produced a judgment denying relief. Appellant brings appeal 16750 from that judgment.
The appeals are consolidated, Rule 29.15(l ), but addressed separately.
Appellant's first point relied on asserts the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilty in that neither appellant nor his alleged coconspirator, Chris Miller, "ever did an overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy so as to elevate their actions beyond mere talk."
The trial court's finding of guilty has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Rule 27.01(b); State v. Giffin, 640 S.W.2d 128, 130 (Mo.1982); State v. Ingleright, 782 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Mo.App.1990). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of guilty we accept as true all evidence tending to prove appellant's guilt, together with inferences favorable to the State that can be reasonably drawn therefrom, and we disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. Giffin, 640 S.W.2d at 130; State v. Brown, 665 S.W.2d 945, 948 (Mo.App.1984). If there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding, its judgment must be affirmed. Giffin, 640 S.W.2d at 130; Brown, 665 S.W.2d at 948.
Viewed favorably to the result below, the evidence reveals that some time prior to January 15, 1988--the precise date is not shown--appellant 2 told James Steddum, 3 a high school student, that he (appellant) wanted Steddum to put him in contact with a young "hoodlum." Appellant cautioned Steddum not to tell appellant's wife or daughter. Steddum told appellant about Chris Miller, a 15-year-old high school student.
Appellant and Miller met for the first time January 15, 1988, about 3:30 p.m., at Hardee's, across the street from Neosho High School. Appellant told Miller he (appellant) had an idea "that could bring in approximately five million dollars."
Appellant inquired whether Miller could obtain "some false I.D.s, and a .38 snub-nosed police special." Appellant expressed preference for an FBI or marshal's badge. Miller responded he had a brother-in-law in jail "because he had been forging I.D.s."
Appellant told Miller "somebody might be killed, die." Appellant asked Miller "to try and find somebody who could possibly help assist, preferably a young lady." Miller gave appellant the name Christina Devore, Miller's 14-year-old stepsister.
Appellant asked whether Miller was interested in the plan. Miller replied, "Yes." The conversation ended when Miller had to depart for work.
Appellant and Miller met again four days later (January 19, 1988), about 3:30 p.m., at the same site. Appellant showed Miller "some blueprints for a fully automatic weapon," together with publications 4 containing formulas for explosives and information about "an I.D. printer." Asked whether appellant said anything about his background, Miller testified, "He stated that he had been in and out of institutions since he was 14, and that he had had this idea in his head for approximately 5 years, and he knew what he was doing."
Appellant asked Miller when they would contact his stepsister. Miller replied, "Well, right now."
The duo left Hardee's, picked up appellant's daughter at high school, and, with appellant driving, took her to "71 Truck Stop" in Diamond, northeast of Neosho, where she was employed. From there, appellant and Miller drove to Joplin to see Christina.
Miller entered Christina's residence and escorted her outside to the car. Appellant asked her whether "she was interested in making a lot of money pretty fast." She said yes. Appellant told her Miller had said she "would do just about anything for money," and asked whether that was true. She said yes, adding that she was "pretty crazy."
Appellant asked Christina whether she "could pull a trigger on anybody, or if she could find any other people, some girls that might be willing to go along with it." As he posed the question, appellant "made the motion of pulling the trigger." Christina said yes. Appellant then stated he "would probably be the one to have to, if that came down to that situation." Appellant added that he "was a conniving son-of-a-bitch." Appellant and Miller then departed, returning to Neosho where they stopped at Wendy's.
While they were conversing inside, appellant wrote "kidnap" on a paper napkin, showed it to Miller, and said, "This is what we're going to do." Appellant then pulled the napkin back and wrote "$25,000" on it. Miller asked who would be kidnapped. Appellant mentioned the name T.W., 5 stating she "had been pampered by her parents all her life" and they "would be more than willing to pay $25,000 to get her back."
Miller, when asked at trial whether appellant explained the method for the kidnapping, testified:
"He said that this is what the badge FBI or marshall [sic] would be used for, that he would go up to this person and flip it out and say, 'I need to speak to you, and would you please come with me?'
Q. Did he indicate how this $25,000 was to be applied?
A. He was going to kidnap these people, and then on that same day call their parents and tell them that if they wanted their daughter back, or son, then they would have to pay $25,000 and bring it to 'X' spot."
The duo left Wendy's and appellant drove them to Loma Linda, described by appellant as "an estate which has ... 2 golf courses, and quite a large number of fine homes." Appellant had once worked there as a security guard.
En route, appellant said there were three other girls who could be "easily accessible" to the plan. Appellant stated they attended school at Seneca, were cheerleaders, and one was a dentist's daughter. Appellant told Miller he (appellant) "wanted to point out the route that they took, and how easily it would be to get them." Miller's trial testimony included this:
"Q. ... Did the [appellant] make any statement as to what would happen to these victims after the kidnapping?
A. He stated that no matter what, they would die, and then their bodies would be thrown down a mine shaft of some sort, and would not be found, unless by accident.
....
Q. Did he indicate why he was going to kill the victims?
A. So that he could not be identified.
Q. Did you happen to discuss any hostage locations?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what did you say?
A. I gave him a reference to a house, an abandoned house.
Q. And did you indicate where this abandoned house was?
A. By James Steddum's house."
Upon arriving at Loma Linda, appellant pointed to a street and told Miller the dentist's daughter lived there. Appellant showed Miller another area and said one of the girls lived there.
The pair then returned to Neosho. Asked whether appellant said anything before they separated, Miller testified, "He stated that I could tell Christina of the plan, but no one else; that otherwise, he would do away with me, kill me."
Appellant and Miller met again around 4:30 p.m., January 20 or 21, 1988, at Neosho High School. Appellant asked Miller whether he "was in or not." Miller answered, "Yes." Appellant then asked Miller to arrange another meeting with Christina. Miller told appellant they could meet the evening of January 26, 1988.
Miller informed James Steddum of the abduction scheme and asked whether Steddum thought he (Miller) should report it to law enforcement officials.
On January 22, 1988, Miller, accompanied by Steddum, went to the Newton County Courthouse and told Detective Pat Stewart of the Neosho Police Department and Bob Williams, the investigator for the Newton County Prosecuting Attorney, about the plan, including "the solicitation of guns and identification." Detective Stewart asked Detective Lance Nichols of the Joplin Police Department to assist in the investigation, as Nichols does "a lot of undercover work."
On January 25, 1988, Nichols went to appellant's home. Nichols was wearing a concealed "bodymike"; its transmissions were being monitored and recorded by Detective Stewart, Investigator Williams and an FBI agent.
Nichols, using an assumed name, told appellant, "Chris ... said to pay you a visit, you may need ... somethin'." Appellant asked what Nichols had and what he could get. Nichols replied that it depended on what appellant needed and that Chris had said appellant "may need some guns."
Appellant stated, "Yea, we might need a few ... I.D. wouldn't hurt a ... bit." Nichols said he could handle military police I.D. Appellant responded that he had been trying to get such identification.
Nichols then asked what kind of guns appellant wanted. Appellant replied, "Oh, I need nothing smaller than a 32."
Nichols and appellant discussed handguns, after which appellant asked whether Chris knew how to get in touch with Nichols. Nichols answered, "Yea ... he can get a hold of me, I'm in and out." Nichols added that if appellant wanted "a little extra man power," he (Nichols) was game "for about anything."
Appellant stated, "I got something in the back of my head ... the chance for some big bucks, that somebody has not tried, has not been tried, that's all I'll say."
Nichols then departed.
About...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hunter
...was not ineffective for failing to investigate and file a meritless motion to suppress defendant's confession. See State v. Jalo, 796 S.W.2d 91, 98 (Mo.App.1990). B. As previously noted, the initial psychiatric evaluation was not completed because defendant failed to cooperate. The argument......
-
State v. Reynolds
...the appealing party, has the duty to see that the record on appeal contains the pleadings on which he bases his claim. State v. Jalo, 796 S.W.2d 91, 96 (Mo.App.S.D.1990). Although this point is not properly before us, we review for plain error. Defendant's contentions are gleaned from a let......
-
State v. Madewell, 17932
...there is no requirement that such act be a physical one or be a substantial step in the commission of the target offense. State v. Jalo, 796 S.W.2d 91, 95 (Mo.App.1990). A conspiracy conviction may be had on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice unless such testimony is so lacking in......