State v. Ore, No. 39391

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Writing for the CourtMcMILLIAN; SMITH
Citation567 S.W.2d 691
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Leroy Yates ORE, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District,Division One
Decision Date06 June 1978
Docket NumberNo. 39391

Page 691

567 S.W.2d 691
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Leroy Yates ORE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 39391.
Missouri Court of Appeals,St. Louis District,Division One.
June 6, 1978.

Page 692

Charles H. Staples, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

McMILLIAN, Judge.

Appellant Leroy Ore appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the circuit court of the City of St. Louis finding him guilty of attempted rape in a court-tried case, and a sentence of forty (40) years imprisonment. A substituted information filed in lieu of the indictment charged appellant with attempted robbery (Count I), attempted rape (Count II) and one prior felony conviction. The trial court found appellant not guilty of attempted robbery.

Page 693

For reversal of his conviction and sentence, appellant argues that the trial court erred: (1) in finding the testimony of the victim to be sufficiently credible to convict appellant of attempted rape; (2) in abusing its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence; (3) by failing to commit appellant upon conviction to the custody of the Director of Mental Health; and (4) in imposing an excessive and arbitrary sentence that was grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime and the evidence adduced in support of the conviction. For reasons hereinafter discussed, we reject each contention, and affirm the judgment.

Appellant's first argument appears to assail the credibility of the testimony given in evidence by the prosecuting witness. Rule 26.01(b), V.A.M.R., provides, inter alia, that the finding of the court shall have the force and effect of a jury verdict. Consequently, our appellate courts review the evidence as though a verdict of guilty has been returned by a jury. Hence, if there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the trial court, its judgment should be affirmed. State v. Sanderson, 528 S.W.2d 527, 529 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Daniels, 487 S.W.2d 465, 469(4) (Mo.1972). Moreover, in criminal cases, on appellate review, we do not weigh the evidence. State v. Amerson, 518 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Mo.1975).

Applying the above appellate review standards to the case at hand, we note first that there is no issue as to appellant's identity nor as to appellant's presence in O'Fallon Park on the morning in question, because appellant admits seeing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • State v. Giffin, No. 62775
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 12, 1982
    ...to support the findings of the trial court, its judgment is to be affirmed. State v. Ruff, 618 S.W.2d 722 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691 (Mo.App.1978). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case after a verdict of guilty, the Court accepts as true all evi......
  • State v. Ruff, No. 42347
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1981
    ...has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Hence, we will affirm that finding if it is supported by substantial evidence. State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Mo.App.1978). We accept the state's evidence, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, as true and ignore evidence and infe......
  • State v. Austin, No. 42955
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 28, 1981
    ...and within the discretion allowed by the trial court in such matters." Benson v. State, 604 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Mo.App.1980); State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691, 694 (Mo.App.1978). The record reveals no abuse of discretion, extreme or otherwise, by the trial Judgment affirmed. REINHARD and SNYDER, J......
  • State v. Runyon, No. 43098
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 11, 1981
    ...a court-tried criminal conviction, reviews the evidence as though a verdict of guilty had been returned by a jury. State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691, 693(1-3) (Mo.App.1978). Rule 27.01(b). The reviewing court determines if there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding, cons......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • State v. Giffin, No. 62775
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 12, 1982
    ...to support the findings of the trial court, its judgment is to be affirmed. State v. Ruff, 618 S.W.2d 722 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691 (Mo.App.1978). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case after a verdict of guilty, the Court accepts as true all evi......
  • State v. Ruff, No. 42347
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1981
    ...has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Hence, we will affirm that finding if it is supported by substantial evidence. State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Mo.App.1978). We accept the state's evidence, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, as true and ignore evidence and infe......
  • State v. Austin, No. 42955
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 28, 1981
    ...and within the discretion allowed by the trial court in such matters." Benson v. State, 604 S.W.2d 652, 653 (Mo.App.1980); State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691, 694 (Mo.App.1978). The record reveals no abuse of discretion, extreme or otherwise, by the trial Judgment affirmed. REINHARD and SNYDER, J......
  • State v. Runyon, No. 43098
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • August 11, 1981
    ...a court-tried criminal conviction, reviews the evidence as though a verdict of guilty had been returned by a jury. State v. Ore, 567 S.W.2d 691, 693(1-3) (Mo.App.1978). Rule 27.01(b). The reviewing court determines if there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's finding, cons......
  • 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