State v. Perkins, KCD
| Decision Date | 29 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 555 S.W.2d 693 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alton M. PERKINS, Appellant. 28634. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Clifford A. Cohen, Public Defender, Lee M. Nation, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Bruce E. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and WASSERSTROM and TURNAGE, JJ.
Defendant was tried and convicted under an indictment charging robbery first degree in the first count, rape in the second count, and sodomy in the third count. On this appeal, he raises the single contention that the trial court erred in refusing his motion for severance. He argues in support that Rule 24.04 allowing joinder of these three counts is an unconstitutional enactment in violation of Article V, § 5 of the Missouri Constitution.
State v. Baker, 524 S.W.2d 122 (Mo.banc 1975) contradicts defendant's position. Burnside v. State, 552 S.W.2d 339 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Brannom, 539 S.W.2d 747 (Mo.App.1976). Defendant relies upon the views expressed in one of the concurring opinions in the Baker case, which disagrees with the majority of the court with respect to the validity of Rule 24.04. However, this court has no choice but to follow and apply the majority view expressed in Baker. State v. Toney, 537 S.W.2d 586, l.c. 596(9) (Mo.App.1976).
Affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Buford, KCD
...v. Duren, 556 S.W.2d 11, 19-20 (Mo. banc 1977), Rev'd on other grounds, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579; State v. Perkins, 555 S.W.2d 693 (Mo.App.1977); Woods v. State, 546 S.W.2d 14 The second issue raised under Rule 24.04 that of the joinder of the robbery and assault counts i......
-
State v. Jackson, 37086
...is procedural and does no violence to Art. V, § 5 of the Missouri Constitution. We adhere to the Duren decision. See also State v. Perkins, 555 S.W.2d 693 (Mo.App.1977). Defendant suggests that the evidence relating to the neutron activation analysis was maculated and therefore inadmissible......