State v. Kelly
Decision Date | 08 June 1953 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 43560,43560,1 |
Citation | 258 S.W.2d 611 |
Parties | STATE v. KELLY |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., and W. Don Kennedy, Asst. Atty. Gen., For respondent.
Richard W. Mason, Saint Joseph, for appellant.
COIL, Commissioner.
Robert Lee Kelly was charged by an amended information with burglary in the second degree and larceny, and with a prior felony conviction. A jury found the prior conviction and found defendant guilty of larceny and assessed his punishment at five years in the penitentiary. Sections 560.070, 560.155, 560.110, 560.160, 556.280, RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.
Defendant has filed a transcript on appeal and a brief. The grounds in his motion for new trial are these:
Defendant contends in point 1 of his brief that the trial court erred in permitting the assistant prosecuting attorney to make a certain comment in the opening statement. No such assignment is contained in the motion for new trial. 'Assignments of error not set forth in the motion for new trial but presented for the first time in defendant's brief filed herein are not preserved for review.? State v. Wilson, 361 Mo. 78, 86, 233 S.W.2d 686, 689.
Defendant has not briefed any point relating to alleged errors in instructions or to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. Consequently, grounds 2, 3, and 4 of his motion for new trial are deemed to be waived or abandoned. State v. Johnson, 362 Mo. 833, 245 S.W.2d 43, 49[15, 16]; Supreme Court Rule 28.02.
Assignments 1, 5, and 6 in the motion for new trial are too general to preserve any point for review. None specifies the error complained of; they state conclusions. State v. Clemons, 356 Mo. 514, 516, 202 S.W.2d 75, 76; State v. Henderson, 356 Mo. 1072, 1076, 204 S.W.2d 774, 777; State v. Davis, Mo.Sup., 161 S.W.2d 973[2-4]. Appellant's brief cannot supply deficiencies in his motion for new trial. State v. Henderson, supra, 204 S.W.2d 777[3, 4].
It follows that defendant has preserved nothing for appellate review.
We have reviewed the record proper. It contains the amended information and shows: defendant's arraignment, plea of not guilty, the empaneling of a jury, the trial proceedings and the presence of defendant thereat, the verdict of the jury, the filing and overruling of a motion for new trial, allocution, and the sentence and judgment in accordance with the verdict.
The information is proper in both form and substance. It properly charges the offenses of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny. Sections 560.070, 560.155, 560.110, supra; State v. Miller, 359 Mo. 327, 331, 221 S.W.2d 724, 725. It properly charges a former conviction of felony and defendant's discharge from judgment of conviction; and that the offenses charged in the amended information were committed after defendant was discharged from his previous sentence. Section 556.280, supra; State v. Harrison, 359 Mo. 793, 794, 223 S.W.2d 476, 478.
The verdict of the jury was: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Johnstone, 47366
...560.135) and the habitual criminal (Sec. 556.280) statutes on the record before us. State v. Jonas, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 3, 6; State v. Kelly, Mo., 258 S.W.2d 611; State v. Ash, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 808, and cases The punishment of life imprisonment was mandatory under the statutes if the jury believ......
-
State v. Ash
...686. Defendant's brief cannot supply the deficiencies in his motion for new trial. State v. Hampton, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 356; State v. Kelly, Mo., 258 S.W.2d 611[3, 4]; State v. Henderson, 356 Mo. 1072, 204 S.W.2d Other grounds for exception in defendant's motion for new trial were not presente......
-
State v. Green
...in the motion for new trial and it will not be considered here. Rule 27.20; State v. Hampton, Banc, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 356; State v. Kelly, Mo., 258 S.W.2d 611. The indictment was replaced by information and is not here as part of the record which we consider sua sponte. This is by no means to......
-
State v. Smith, 46509
...S.W.2d 476, 478(2, 3); State v. Whipkey, 358 Mo. 563, 215 S.W.2d 492, 495(7); State v. Jonas, Mo.Sup., 260 S.W.2d 3, 6; State v. Kelley, Mo.Sup., 258 S.W.2d 611, 612; State v. Foster, Mo.Sup., 251 S.W.2d 675, The second complaint made by petitioner-appellant in his petition is that he was i......