State v. Norris

Decision Date09 August 1991
Docket Number17237,Nos. 16759,s. 16759
Citation813 S.W.2d 379
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Tony Ray NORRIS, Defendant-Appellant. Tony Ray NORRIS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Brad B. Baker, Columbia, for defendant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Joseph P. Murray, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

PARRISH, Judge.

Tony Ray Norris (defendant) was convicted, following a jury trial, of the offenses of sale of marijuana and sale of methamphetamine. § 195.020, RSMo 1986 (repealed 1989 Mo.Laws). Defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion was denied. Defendant appeals the conviction for the sale of marijuana and the order denying his Rule 29.15 motion. Those appeals were consolidated as required by Rule 29.15(l ). This court affirms.

In reviewing defendant's conviction for the sale of marijuana, the evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the verdict rendered by the jury. State v. Ternetz, 740 S.W.2d 713, 714 (Mo.App.1987). All evidence and inferences that tend to support the verdict are accepted as true. State v. Brown, 660 S.W.2d 694, 698-99 (Mo. banc 1983). Evidence and inferences to the contrary are disregarded. Id. "The question is whether the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to support the verdict." Id. at 699, citing State v. Story, 646 S.W.2d 68, 72 (Mo. banc 1983).

In March 1989, Ed White was a deputy sheriff of Vernon County working on an undercover assignment. In performing his duties, White came in contact with defendant. On March 2, White contacted Mike Bruhn at the Subway Bar in Vernon County. He told Bruhn that he "would take a half ounce of Marijuana" and gave Bruhn $50. Defendant was also at the bar. Bruhn went to defendant. The two of them left the premises together. White watched Bruhn and defendant through a window. Bruhn and defendant went to defendant's pickup truck that was parked behind the Subway Bar. White testified at the trial of defendant's criminal case:

Q. And tell this Jury what you observed out the window in the parking lot?

A. I saw Mr. Bruhn hand the Defendant the money that I had given him or some money.

Q. And what else did you see?

A. I saw the Defendant hand him a plastic--what appeared to be a plastic bag.

Q. And what's the next thing you noticed?

A. Mr. Bruhn came back into the Bar and gave the plastic bag with green leafy substance to me.

The green leafy substance was later submitted to a laboratory for analysis. It was marijuana. Its weight was 10.98 grams before the analysis and 10.88 grams after the analysis.

"[A]n hour or two" after receiving the marijuana, White talked to defendant at another bar at Nevada, Missouri. White testified Q. What did the Defendant say to you, if anything, an hour or two after you had done this business with Mr. Bruhn?

A. He told me that Mike had got the Marijuana from him.

. . . . .

Q. Again, what did he say to you?

A. He told me that the pot was Texas Redbud, and that Mike had gotten it from him.

Q. Referring to the incident hours ago?

A. Yes.

Q. What else, if anything, did he say to you?

A. We discussed meeting with a friend of mine, working for a connection for some large quantities, he told me he could supply me a pound on a continuous basis, with the cash up front the price was $1200.00, and if it was fronted to him it was $1250.00.

Defendant moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case contending there was "no evidence whatsoever that the Defendant sold Ed White Marijuana or anything else." That motion was overruled. Defendant then rested without presenting evidence and again moved, at the end of all the evidence, for a verdict of acquittal "on the same grounds [as] at the end of the State's evidence." The trial court overruled that motion.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred "in denying [defendant's] motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence and the motion for new trial and in entering judgment of guilty on Count I, sale of marijuana...." Defendant argues that the state's evidence did not show "that [defendant] sold marijuana to Ed White, ... or that [defendant] was an affirmative participant in the sale of marijuana by Mike Bruhn to Ed White."

The information that charged defendant with the offense of sale of marijuana charged him as a principal offender, not as an accomplice. The evidence that was adduced, however, implicated defendant in a sale that was transacted between Ed White and Mike Bruhn. The jury instruction used as the verdict-directing instruction for the offense of sale of marijuana was in the form prescribed by MAI-CR 3d 304.04. That instruction directed the jury to find defendant guilty if it found that a sale of marijuana occurred and that defendant, "with the purpose of promoting or furthering the commission of that sale of marihuana, ... acted together with or aided Mike Bruhn in committing that offense."

"Even though the information charges the defendant as a principal, a trial court may properly submit to a jury active participation or aiding and abetting." State v. Mansfield, 793 S.W.2d 609, 612 (Mo.App.1990), citing State v. Crumbaker, 753 S.W.2d 76, 78 (Mo.App.1988), and State v. Randleman, 705 S.W.2d 98, 101 (Mo.App.1986). The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that defendant aided Mike Bruhn in the sale of marijuana to Ed White and that defendant's actions in that regard were undertaken with the purpose of promoting or furthering the sale. The trial court committed no error in denying defendant's motions for acquittal.

Defendant also contends that the motion court erred in denying the relief sought by his Rule 29.15 motion. He argues that the motion court erred in finding that he received effective assistance of counsel in the criminal case. Defendant claims that his trial attorney was derelict "by failing to secure the presence of and examine as witnesses Sharon Hill Mason and Jerry Murray to rebut the testimony of Ed White that he observed the transfer of marijuana from [defendant] to Mike Bruhn."

The state's brief aptly calls this court's attention to the fact that the amended Rule 29.15 motion filed on behalf of defendant was not verified. 1 Neither was it signed by defendant. For those reasons, the amended motion is a legal nullity. Foster v. State, 809 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Mo.App.1991). The amended motion being a legal nullity, "the motion court should have considered only movant's pro se motion." Id., citing Klaus v. State, 782 S.W.2d 455, 456 (Mo.App.1990).

The state suggests, however, that regardless of whether defendant's pro se motion or his purported amended motion was before the motion court, defendant is not entitled to the relief he now seeks. The state argues that the point defendant now raises on appeal differs from the issues that were presented in either the pro se motion or the amended motion. The state contends that defendant therefore waived the claim that he now attempts to raise on appeal.

In his pro se motion, defendant asserted as a grounds for relief, "inaffecive [sic] assistant [sic] of counsel." In the amended motion, defendant attempted to assert, as a grounds for relief, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in the following respects:

D. Failed to fully investigate the facts of the case before proceeding to trial, including visiting the Subway Bar in Nevada, Missouri, the scene of the crime. Had counsel gone to the Subway Bar and taken photographs, he could have shown to the jury that Ed White's testimony that he saw a transaction through a picture window was false and impossible. Counsel did not investigate the scene of the crime nor offer any evidence in the defense of Tony Norris;

E. Failed to fully investigate the facts of the case, including witnesses who could have testified to the fact that Ed White was not "simulating" consuming alcohol, but was in fact consuming large amounts of alcohol and was intoxicated.

Both the pro se motion and the amended motion identified Jerry Murray and Sharon Hill as witnesses who defendant would call at evidentiary hearing. Defendant did not, however, present a claim to the motion court that his trial counsel was ineffective for having failed to present and examine Jerry Murray and Sharon Hill as witnesses in the criminal trial.

"A point raised on appeal can be considered only to the extent that it was raised in the post-conviction motion before the trial court." Mevius v. State, 789 S.W.2d 888, 892 (Mo.App.1990). This court cannot go beyond the issues as presented to the motion court in ascertaining "whether the findings and conclusions of the trial court are clearly erroneous." Rule 29.15(j). The findings and conclusions of the motion court regarding claimed ineffective assistance of counsel were limited to the issue of whether defendant's trial counsel adequately investigated defendant's case in preparing that case for trial. That is not the issue identified in the point on appeal. The question of whether counsel was ineffective in not calling Murray and Hill as witnesses in the criminal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Oxford v. Delo, 94-1879
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 8, 1995
    ...motion was not properly verified); State v. Boyd, 816 S.W.2d 19, 20 (Mo.Ct.App.1991) (to same effect); State v. Norris, 813 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo.Ct.App.1991) (to same effect); State v. Leisure, 810 S.W.2d 560, 576 (Mo.Ct.App.1991) (to same effect); State v. Norfolk, 807 S.W.2d 105, 108 (Mo.C......
  • State v. Morris, s. 17365
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 8, 1992
    ...the State, is sufficient to support the verdict." Id. at 699, citing State v. Story, 646 S.W.2d 68, 72 (Mo. banc 1983). State v. Norris, 813 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Mo.App.1991). Defendant accurately states the elements of first degree murder to be "(1) knowingly (2) causing the death of another p......
  • State v. Ray, s. 17733 and 18237
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 26, 1993
    ...conviction for sodomy, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict rendered by the jury. State v. Norris, 813 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Mo.App.1991). So viewed, the evidence reveals that on January 11, 1991, eight-year-old C.G. and her younger brother were living with their m......
  • State v. Goldsby
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 22, 1992
    ...his appellate brief, a point on appeal can be considered only to the extent that it was raised before the motion court. State v. Norris, 813 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Mo.App.1991). Based on the allegations contained in appellant's motion, we cannot say the conclusions of the motion court are clearly......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT