State v. Estes, 51456
| Decision Date | 10 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 51456,No. 1,51456,1 |
| Citation | 406 S.W.2d 560 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Wayne ESTES, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Donald R. Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Attorneys for Respondent.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from an order overruling motions filed under Criminal Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., to vacate sentences and judgments in ten burglary and larceny cases filed against Wayne Estes. Ten transcripts were filed here under one docket number. All ten matters will be disposed of by this opinion.
The ten cases were filed in the 38th Judicial Circuit in March and May of 1952, during the term of office of Circuit Judge Tom R. Moore. On December 29, 1952 Judge Moore disqualified himself in four of the cases and Honorable William Collinson, Judge of the 23rd Judicial Circuit, was called as Special Judge to try those four cases. Judge Collinson assumed jurisdiction and appeared for the purpose of setting the four cases for trial. Prior to the date of trial defendant escaped and fled the jurisdiction. On May 29, 1953 the court ordered the cases stricken from the docket, but they were not dismissed. The ten cases were reinstated on the docket on August 22, 1960, defendant in the meantime having been taken into custody. Between his escape in 1953 and his return in 1960 defendant had served time under convictions in Arizona and in a federal court. On August 22, 1960, at the request of defendant and his counsel, the regular judge of the circuit, Judge Crain, called a special term of court upon proper waiver of time for the purpose of disposing of the ten cases. Defendant, accompanied by his attorney, was arraigned before Judge Crain and in each of the ten cases he entered a plea of guilty. Judge Crain sentenced him in each case to 5 years for burglary and 5 years for larceny and ordered in each case that the two 5-year terms run concurrently. On the same day, in each case, Judge Crain made an order directing that the sentence and judgment be suspended until the further order of the court on condition that defendant be placed under the supervision of the state department of probation and parole. In one case there was a further condition that defendant post a $5000 appearance bond.
On May 28, 1962 'the court' made the following order:
On June 1, 1964 defendant, accompanied by his attorney, appeared in court before Judge Crain, the regular judge of the circuit, at which time defendant's counsel asked the court to reinstate the suspended sentences. Judge Crain refused to grant further lenience, ordered commitments to issue in accordance with the original sentences and ordered that the sentences in the ten cases run concurrently. Defendant was taken into custody and delivered to the penitentiary.
On September 9, 1964 defendant, by and through his counsel, filed motions under Criminal Rule 27.26 to vacate the sentences and judgments, alleging that at the time his pleas were entered on August 22, 1960 he was on parole from a federal penitentiary and that after the pleas were entered in the ten cases the court granted probation 'to run concurrently with defendant's Federal Sentence.' Based on this postulate the motions further alleged that the federal government had priority of defendant's person, and that under the law of comity the Missouri court, by ordering the 5-year sentences 'to run concurrently with Federal Probation,' waived or relinquished jurisdiction over defendant to the federal government; that the 5-year sentences in the ten cases did not stop running when the orders suspending the sentences were made, and did not become 'dormant,' but continued to run, because the state and federal sentences were concurrent. His position is that after completion and expiration of his federal sentence 1 he could not be required to serve the state sentences--that the state sentences terminated and were satisfied upon the expiration of the federal sentence. The motions further alleged that 'this Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCrary v. State
...State, 470 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Mo.1971) 7. Validity of extradition proceedings. Watson v. State, 475 S.W.2d 8, 12 (Mo.1972) State v. Estes, 406 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Mo.1966) 8. Ineffective assistance of counsel at 27.26 hearing. Duncan v. State, 524 S.W.2d 140, 142 (Mo.App.1975) Harkins v. State, ......
-
O'Neal v. State, 14752
...proceedings under which an accused has been returned to this jurisdiction. Watson v. State, 475 S.W.2d 8, 12 (Mo.1972); State v. Estes, 406 S.W.2d 560, 562 (Mo.1966); State v. Donnell, 387 S.W.2d 508, 510 (Mo.1965). Movant's first point is In his second point, movant insists that the attorn......
- Watson v. State
-
McBride v. State, 56670
...parole; and (3) That extradition of appellant from Texas to Missouri prior to sentencing was unlawful. Appellant cites State v. Estes, 406 S.W.2d 560, wherein this court stated that 'We do not inquire into the validity of extradition proceedings under which the defendant (Estes) has been re......