State v. Ortell, 31737.
| Decision Date | 10 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 31737.,31737. |
| Citation | 50 S.W.2d 1037 |
| Parties | STATE v. ORTELL. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; James F. Green, Judge.
Tony Ortell, alias Tony Oertell, was convicted of first degree robbery and three prior convictions, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Stratton Shartel, Atty. Gen., and Denton Dunn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
By an information filed in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, the defendant was charged with robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon. It is alleged in the information that the defendant has been previously convicted of two felonies in the state of Missouri and of one felony in the state of Iowa, and by these allegations the case is brought within the provisions of the Habitual Criminal Act. The trial resulted in the following verdict: "We, the jury in the above entitled cause, find the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree and three (3) prior convictions, as by the information he stands charged, and assess the punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for his natural life." The defendant was sentenced in accordance with the verdict, and appealed in due course.
Only the record proper is before us for review. No bill of exceptions was filed by the defendant in the trial court, and he has filed no brief in this court.
A careful examination of the record proper discloses no prejudicial error. The information sufficiently charges the defendant with robbery in the first degree by means of a dangerous and deadly weapon, under sections 4058 and 4061 of the Revised Statutes of 1929, and sufficiently alleges three previous convictions of the defendant, under sections 4461 and 4462 of the Revised Statutes of 1929, which constitute the Habitual Criminal Act. The verdict is responsive to the information, and fixes the defendant's punishment as provided by section 4461. The judgment is in full accord with the verdict and in approved form.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnstone, 47366
...as evidenced by the sentence of life imprisonment is without merit. State v. Copeland, 335 Mo. 140, 71 S.W.2d 746[10, 11]; State v. Ortell, Mo., 50 S.W.2d 1037; State v. Macon, Mo., 287 S.W. Defendant, in separate assignments, contends prejudicial error occurred in allowing the State to exh......
-
State v. Ash
...347 Mo. 1033, 151 S.W.2d 1105. Notwithstanding its inapt wording, the verdict is also sufficient on the prior convictions. State v. Ortell, Mo., 50 S.W.2d 1037; State v. Foster, Mo., 251 S.W.2d 675[5, 6]; State v. Martin, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 336; State v. Hagerman, 361 Mo. 994, 238 S.W.2d State......
-
State v. Hagerman
...and shown by the state's evidence. Specific findings are sufficient. State v. Tyler, supra. But they are not required. In State v. Ortell, Mo.Sup., 50 S.W.2d 1037, we held sufficient a verdict similar to the verdict here as responsive to an information similar to the information here. We ru......
-
State v. Bohannon, 41985
...and in some of the cases the convicting jury did not find against the defendant on all the prior convictions alleged. State v. Ortell, Mo.Sup. Div. 2, 50 S.W.2d 1037; State v. Tyler, Mo. Div. 2, 349 Mo. 167, 171(5), 159 S.W.2d 777, 780(7); State v. Hall, Mo.Sup. Div. 2, 152 S.W.2d 76; State......