State v. Knox

• Citation: 604 S.W.3d 316
• Decision Date: 11 August 2020
• Docket Number: No. SC 98298,SC 98298
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Rodney KNOX, Appellant.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

604 S.W.3d 316

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Rodney KNOX, Appellant.

No. SC 98298

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued August 11, 2020

Knox was represented by Nina McDonnell of the public defender's office in St. Louis, (314) 340-7662.

The state was represented by Richard A. Starnes of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, (573) 751-3321.

Laura Denvir Stith, Judge

Rodney Knox alleges the circuit court erred in entering judgment against him for two counts of class A misdemeanor stealing because the jury found only the elements necessary to convict him of class D misdemeanors. This Court agrees. The jury instructions merely required the jury to find Mr. Knox retained the two victims’ personal items without their consent and with the purpose of withholding this property from them. Absent proof of value, the offense submitted was a class D misdemeanor under section 570.030.7,¹ not a class A misdemeanor under section 570.030.8. Therefore, the circuit court erred in entering judgment for two class A misdemeanor stealing convictions.

Mr. Knox also appeals his judgment of conviction for one count of felony stealing. Because his third victim failed to specifically state Mr. Knox or an accomplice stole the $1,200 the intruders found while going through this victim's pockets in the course of stealing things of value from his apartment, he argues, the evidence was insufficient to convict him of stealing more than $750. This Court disagrees. The jury was free to infer Mr. Knox got the $1,200 from the victim based on the victim's testimony in combination with the evidence that Mr. Knox and another man were caught while leaving the victim's apartment complex immediately after the robbery with other stolen items, the victim's identification of Mr. Knox as one of the individuals who robbed him, and the fact Mr. Knox had $1,570 in his pocket when arrested. This evidence provided the jury with a sufficient basis to infer Mr. Knox stole the cash and to disbelieve his alternative explanation for having so much cash in his pocket. But because violation of that section is a class D felony under the version of that statute in effect when the crime was committed, the circuit court erred in entering judgment against Mr. Knox for a class C felony. This Court reverses the judgment and remands the case for entry of a corrected judgment consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The State charged Rodney Knox with three counts of first-degree robbery and three counts of armed criminal action,² all stemming from a single event in January 2017. The evidence showed that several armed men with face coverings pushed their way into the apartment of Jabari Turner. The men forced Mr. Turner and his friends to lay on the floor while they searched the apartment. The State presented evidence the intruders took a laptop computer, a PlayStation controller, cellular telephones, headphones, a Bluetooth speaker, a watch, marijuana, and a Versace belt. Mr. Turner testified that he had $1,200 in rent money in his pockets and that the intruders went through his pockets and the pockets of the other victims.

Mr. Turner called the police once the intruders left. The police arrived at the apartment building within one minute and saw four men with face coverings and bags full of items getting out of the elevator. Upon seeing police, the men began to run, dropping some items as they went. Officers apprehended two of the suspects, later identified as Rodney Knox and Donnoven Williams. Mr. Turner identified Mr. Knox at the scene, telling police Mr. Knox had been the man with a black and silver pistol. Mr. Knox was found with a handgun, $1,570 in cash, and several items Mr. Turner identified as stolen, including the Versace belt, a watch, the Bluetooth speaker, and headphones.

At trial, the State did not present evidence of the value of the stolen items of personal property.³ Mr. Turner testified he had $1,200 in cash in his pockets, the intruders searched his pockets and those of his friends, and he thought at least one of his friends had cash. But Mr. Turner was not specifically asked whether the men had taken the cash they found when going through his or the other victims’ pockets.

Mr. Knox testified in his own defense. He said he went with two of his uncles and another man to the apartment to purchase marijuana but did not know his three companions intended to rob the people in the apartment. Mr. Knox testified he waited for the three other men on a different floor of the apartment complex while he thought they were buying drugs and then went up to Mr. Turner's floor, where he saw his companions leaving the apartment while wearing face coverings. The three men each held bags filled with various items, and some items fell out of the bags in the elevator. Mr. Knox said he picked up the dropped items at his uncle's direction.

Mr. Knox testified that, when the police arrived, he did not run as the others did because he was unaware of the robbery and did not know the items he held had been stolen. He explained the $1,570 in cash in his pocket was his life savings, which he carried with him because his mother was a drug addict and he did not want her to take the money. Mr. Knox said the gun he was carrying was registered to him and he always carried it because he had been robbed in the past.

The circuit court instructed the jury on three counts of first-degree robbery and three counts of armed criminal action for use of a weapon in each robbery, one for each of the three robbery victims. Without objection from the State, as to the two victims who did not testify at trial, the court also instructed the jury that, if it did not find Mr. Knox guilty of robbery as to them, it should consider whether he was guilty of misdemeanor stealing for taking one victim's watch and misdemeanor stealing for taking the other victim's Bluetooth speaker without consent and with the intent to keep them. These misdemeanor instructions did not require the jury to make any finding as to the value of the watch or speaker. The jury acquitted Mr. Knox of armed criminal action and, as to these two victims, found him guilty only of the two misdemeanor stealing counts—the jury did not find him guilty of these two first-degree robbery counts.

As to Mr. Turner, again without objection from the State, the circuit court gave the jury two additional instructions that, if it did not find Mr. Knox guilty of the first-degree robbery count, it should consider whether (1) he was guilty of felony stealing by taking Mr. Turner's money and headphones with a value of more than $750 or (2) he was guilty of misdemeanor stealing for taking Mr. Turner's headphones without his consent and with the intent to keep them. The jury again did not return a guilty verdict on the submission of first-degree robbery and acquitted Mr. Knox on the associated count of armed criminal action but did find Mr. Knox guilty of felony stealing for taking Mr. Turner's $1,200 and headphones.

Mr. Knox appealed. The key question on appeal is whether, based on these jury verdicts, the circuit court properly entered judgment for one count of class C felony stealing from Mr. Turner, for which Mr. Knox received a five-year suspended sentence, and two counts of class A misdemeanor stealing from two other victims, for which he was sentenced to concurrent terms of six months in jail and released for time served. After opinion by the court of appeals, this Court granted transfer. Mo. Const. art. V, § 10 . For the reasons discussed below, the Court holds the circuit court should have entered judgment for one count of class D felony stealing and two counts of class D misdemeanor stealing and remands for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"An appellate court's review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is limited to determining whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Porter, 439 S.W.3d 208, 211 (Mo. banc 2014). Evidence and inferences favorable to the State are accepted as true, and evidence to the contrary is rejected. Id. Appellate review is limited to whether, "in light of the evidence most favorable to the State, any rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. When an error is not objected to in the circuit court, on appeal "plain errors affecting substantial rights may be considered in the discretion of the court when the court finds that manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice has resulted therefrom." Rule 30.20.

The question of what the State must prove to support a conviction for a class A misdemeanor under section 570.030.8 is one of statutory interpretation and, therefore, is determined de novo. Finnegan v. Old Republic Title Co. of St. Louis, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 928, 930 (Mo. banc 2008). "The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the statute." State v. Salazar, 236 S.W.3d 644, 646 (Mo. banc 2007). The rule of lenity requires that criminal statutes be strictly construed against the State. Id.

III. THE INSTRUCTIONS SUBMITTED CLASS D MISDEMEANOR STEALING

Mr. Knox argues the circuit court improperly entered judgment against him on two counts of class A misdemeanor stealing because the misdemeanor instructions to the jury proved only class D misdemeanors, not class A misdemeanors. He admits he failed to object to circuit court's error in entering judgment for two class A misdemeanors but argues doing so was plain error because the six-month sentences he received were in excess of the only authorized punishment for a class D misdemeanor, which under sections 558.002 and 558.004 is a fine not to exceed $500.

Mr. Knox is correct. "Being sentenced to a punishment greater than the maximum...