State v. Myers, 9138
| Decision Date | 18 August 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 9138,9138 |
| Citation | 470 S.W.2d 803 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Donald Ray MYERS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Darrell Deputy, Jr., Prosecuting Atty., LeBanon, Mo., for plaintiff-respondent.
Orville C. Winchell, Lebanon, Mo., for defendant-appellant.
Defendant was charged in the Circuit Court of Laclede County with the second offense misdemeanor of operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. § 564.440. 1 Out of the hearing of the jury, the trial court conducted a pre-trial investigation of defendant's previous conviction and determined that on September 27, 1964, 'defendant was convicted of driving an automobile while in an intoxicated condition, a misdemeanor * * * and paid a fine of' $10 and costs of $11.55 'in the Magistrate Court.' 2 Thereafter, the court announced 'the only issue that will be submitted to the jury will be the guilt or innocence of the defendant.' Following trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and the court assessed 'the defendant's punishment at confinement in the Laclede County jail for a term of four months.' Defendant's post trial motions were overruled and he appealed prematurely before allocution, sentence and judgment. State v. Myers, Mo.App., 467 S.W.2d 577. Subsequent to remand and proper procedures, defendant has again appealed. His complaint, as in the court nisi, is that the trial court erroneously applied § 556.280 3 (the Habitual Criminal Act) to a misdemeanor case and thereby deprived him of the right to have the jury determine his punishment as well as his guilt or innocence.
The Habitual Criminal Act (§ 556.280) is highly penal and must be strictly construed. State v. Hacker, Mo., 291 S.W.2d 155, 157(1). As it appears in the act, 'punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary' is a term of art (State v. Kiddoo, Mo., 354 S.W.2d 883, 885) and constitutes an exact synonym for 'felony,' which is defined in § 556.020. 4 The authority for a trial court to assess punishment in a jury case under the Habitual Criminal Act is properly exercised only where a defendant previously has been convicted of a felony (State v. Ginnings, Mo., 466 S.W.2d 675, 677(1); State v. Briggs, Mo., 435 S.W.2d 361, 362; State v. Garrett, Mo., 416 S.W.2d 116, 120(7)) and has been 'charged with having thereafter committed a felony.' § 556.280. No authority is derived from § 564.440 (intoxicated driving) for a trial court to assess punishment, and when the Habitual Criminal Act is not applicable, defendant is entitled to have the jury determine his punishment. State v. Young, Mo., 366 S.W.2d 386, 390; § 556.280(2).
Had the first two violations of § 564.440 (intoxicated driving) not been specifically denominated as misdemeanors in the statute, determining them to be such would be a facile matter by reference to § 556.040. 5 Sections 564.440 and 556.280 each contain provisions that the trial court should conduct proceedings out of the hearing of the jury to determine prior convictions. However, the hearing conducted under § 556.280 is held to ascertain if the Habitual Criminal Act is pertinent, whereas under § 564.440 the hearing is to determine whether defendant is correctly charged with a second offense misdemeanor or with a felony and how to instruct the jury on punishment bounds if he is found guilty. No felony was involved in the present case. Defendant was charged with a misdemeanor and the prior conviction was alleged to have been a misdemeanor. When a defendant was charged under Laws 1923, § 22, p. 243, with the second offense misdemeanor of possessing intoxicating liquor, it was held in State v. Lee, Mo.App., 298 S.W. 1044, 1045(3), that the habitual criminal section 'deals with felony cases * * * and has no application to a prosecution of this character.' A sentence fixed by the court instead of by the jury when the Habitual Criminal Act is not applicable is void (State v. Bryant, Mo., 375 S.W.2d 107, 110(5)), and although the punishment assessed by the court was what the jury could have fixed, the defendant was prejudiced because the jury might have imposed a lesser punishment. State v. Wiley, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 485, 487. Because defendant was improperly tried and his punishment improperly fixed, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
All concur.
1 Statutory references are to RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.
Sec. 564.440--...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kaiser
...or second offense misdemeanor or with a felony and how to instruct the jury on punishment limits if found guilty. State v. Myers, 470 S.W.2d 803, 805(4) (Mo.App.1971). Article I, Section 19, Constitution of Missouri, provides: 'That no person shall be compelled to testify against himself in......
-
State v. Wickizer
...establish Essentially, appellant contends that the Habitual Criminal Act is highly penal and must be strictly construed. State v. Myers, 470 S.W.2d 803 (Mo.App.1971); State v. Hacker, 291 S.W.2d 155 (Mo.1956). Consequently, it is not sufficient merely to allege appellant pled guilty to the ......
-
State v. Smith, KCD
...defendant charges that the sentence fixed by the trial court was void because the Second Offender Act was inapplicable, State v. Myers, 470 S.W.2d 803, 805 (Mo.App.1971), and he was prejudiced thereby because the jury might have imposed a lesser punishment, State v. Wiley, 412 S.W.2d 485, 4......
-
State v. Howard, 11652.
...ranges of punishment under Section 195.200.1(b) 195.200.1(1)(b) must be submitted to the jury. Section 195.200.2, and see State v. Myers, 470 S.W.2d 803 (Mo. App.1971). In all other cases where the court finds prior offenses or convictions, the punishment provisions of subdivisions (2), (3)......