State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 18 February 1908 |
| Citation | 209 Mo. 389,107 S.W. 1057 |
| Parties | STATE v. MILLER. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Hugo Muench, Judge.
William (alias Buck) Miller was found guilty of burglary in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.
Chas. B. Trimmer, for appellant. The Attorney General and Frank Blake, for the State.
This cause is now before this court upon appeal by the defendant from a judgment of conviction in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. On January 9, 1906, the assistant circuit attorney of the city of St. Louis filed an information, duly verified, in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis against the defendant, charging that on May 12, 1904, he was convicted of the offense of attempted burglary, in the second degree, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, and that he was duly discharged upon lawful compliance with said sentence; that after said discharge, and on the 1st day of January, 1907, he committed the crime of burglary by entering a building of one Herman Applebaum, with the intent to steal and carry away certain goods, wares, and merchandise deposited therein. Defendant was duly arraigned upon January 22, 1907, and the trial occurred on February 8, 1907, and a verdict was rendered by the jury the next day, finding the defendant guilty of burglary in the second degree and of a former conviction, as charged in the information, and his punishment was assessed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for his natural life. A motion for new trial appears to have been filed on February 13, 1907, and overruled on March 4, 1907. Defendant was duly sentenced on March 9, 1907. An appeal was prayed for and granted on March 30, 1907, and appellant was given until May 11, 1907, within which to file his bill of exceptions; but the bill was never filed, and the case stands upon the record proper.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dimmick
...being filed and there being no bill of exceptions and the record proper being in regular form, the judgment must be affirmed. State v. Miller, 209 Mo. 389; State v. Anderson, 228 Mo. 441; State v. Halliday, 311 Mo. 474. (2) In the absence of a motion for new trial and bill of exceptions, th......
-
State v. Dimmick
...being filed and there being no bill of exceptions and the record proper being in regular form, the judgment must be affirmed. State v. Miller, 209 Mo. 389; State v. Anderson, 228 Mo. 441; State v. Halliday, 311 Mo. 474. (2) In the absence of a motion for new trial and bill of exceptions, th......
-
Lige v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co.
... ... Missouri Constitution and Fourteenth Amendment of the ... Constitution of the United States prohibiting any State from ... passing any law which abridges the privileges and immunities ... of citizens of the United States. State ex rel. Rolston ... v. Chicago, ... Jones v ... Yore, 142 Mo. 38; Simon v. Craft, 182 U.S. 427; ... Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673; State v ... Miller, 209 Mo. 389; Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 ... U.S. 657; Ohio ex rel. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U.S ... 445; Gladson v. Minnesota, 166 U.S. 427; ... ...
-
State v. Franck, 43346
...Two other decisions in point but not cited in either brief are State v. Manicke, 139 Mo. 545, 547-8(1), 41 S.W. 223 and State v. Miller, 209 Mo. 389, 390, 107 S.W. 1057. The Austin case 1 held that an indictment for a second offense was defective under Sec. 3959, R.S.1889, now Sec. 556.280 ......