State v. Pitts
| Decision Date | 10 October 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 44252,44252,2 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Roy James PITTS, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
No attorney for appellant.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., William B. Waters, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
BARRETT, Commissioner.
A jury found Roy James Pitts guilty of burglary in the second degree and guilty of larceny in connection with the burglary and, in addition, the jury found a prior felony conviction. The jury, however, was 'unable to assess the punishment for such guilt' and the court, as required under the statutes, fixed his punishment at the maximum provided for the two offenses, fifteen years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. V.A.M.S. Secs. 546.390, 546.400, 546.410, 546.440, 556.280(2), 560.095; Sup.Ct.Rules 27.02, 27.03, 42 V.A.M.S.
Upon this appeal the appellant is not represented by counsel and no brief has been filed on his behalf in this court. Consequently, this court must consider all matters heretofore deemed a part of the record proper and all valid assignments of error set forth in his motion for a new trial. V.A.M.S. Sec. 547.270; Sup.Ct.Rule 28.02; State v. Jonas, Mo., 260 S.W.2d 3. Upon the trial of his case the appellant was represented by the Public Defender Bureau and the fact that the bureau filed a brief or momorandum in the trial court in support of his motion for a new trial is not a waiver of the assignments of error not briefed in that court, the rule and the statute apply only to the practice and procedure in this court. State v. Henderson, 356 Mo. 1072, 204 S.W.2d 774; State v. Boyd, Mo., 256 S.W.2d 765.
In this connection the assignments that the punishment assessed was so great as to be cruel and unusual and that the verdict of the jury was 'illogical, inimical, facetious, paradoxical, fallacious and was a complete misunderstanding and in disregard of the Court's instructions' are not reviewable assignments of error. Sup.Ct.Rule 27.20; State v. Wilson, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 857, 860; State v. Henderson, supra. As indicated, in view of the jury's verdict no other sentence was possible and the verdict and sentence do not show passion and prejudice or cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Montgomery, Mo., 223 S.W.2d 463, 465; State v. O'Brien, Mo., 249 S.W.2d 433, 434. Likewise, the assignments that the circuit attorney 'handled the verdicts' in his closing argument and continuously argued 'about the 'uncontroverted evidence" are not reviewable upon this record. The argument of counsel is not set forth in the record and, obviously, it is not possible to consider the alleged prejudicial effect of counsel's conduct or argument. State v. Gerberding, Mo., 272 S.W.2d 230, 235; State v. Price, 348 Mo. 361, 364, 153 S.W.2d 353, 355.
As to the prior conviction, the information alleged that in 1951 the appellant was convicted of burglary in the second degree and sentenced to two years' imprisonment and 'was duly discharged * * * under conditional commutation of said sentence.' It is urged that the setting forth of the prior conviction in the information was not in good faith and was 'alleged only for the purpose of prejudicing the jury,' particularly on voir dire examination. It is also asserted that the information was fatally defective in that it did not allege a discharge 'either upon pardon or upon compliance with the sentence'. V.A.M.S. Sec. 556.280. As to the latter assignment it has been definitely settled that a discharge 'under conditional commutation' of sentence is a 'pardon' or 'compliance with the sentence' within the meaning of the statute, V.A.M.S. Sec. 556.280, and subjects the subsequent offender to the penalties of the act. State ex rel. Stewart v. Blair, 356 Mo. 790, 203 S.W.2d 716; State v. Cerny, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 844, 845. In this case, contrary to the fact in most instances, the circuit attorney did not abandon the alleged prior conviction but proved it and the jury found it, and it is difficult to see how there could be any question as to his good faith with respect to the allegation. State v. Mosier, Mo., 102 S.W.2d 620; State v. Rickart, Mo., 81 S.W.2d 309.
As to the burglary and larceny, the facts were that shortly after eight o'clock, March 31, 1953, a man sitting in a window across the street from 726 South Fourth Street 'seen a couple guys come by and throw something and break a glass and walk up the street and then come back and one reached in and got something.' The man sitting in the window was unable to identify the men but by 8:40 a patrol car was informed of 'a window smashing' and given a description of two men as possible suspects. As the patrol car stopped in front of the Eleven-O-Six Club, about a block from 726 South Fourth Street, two men standing outside the door went inside, 'directly to the men's toilet,' and detective Valenti followed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
...to grounds, as to preserve any question for review. Section 547.030 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S.; 42 V.A.M.S. Supreme Court Rule 27.20; State v. Pitts, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 561; State v. Lord, Mo., 286 S.W.2d 737. When error is asserted in a motion for new trial concerning the exclusion of testimony, the......
-
State v. Peterson
...has become firmly established that such allegations meet the requirements of the statute. State v. Asher, Mo., 246 S.W. 911; State v. Pitts, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 561. And likewise of his complaints that the exhibits concerning his prior trial, conviction and discharge were not properly authentic......
-
Whitaker v. State
...under commutation of a sentence by the Governor' was an allegation that defendant had been discharged 'upon pardon.' See State v. Pitts, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 561; State v. Cerny, Mo., 248 S.W.2d 844; State v. Peterson, Mo., 305 S.W.2d 695; State v. Brewer, Mo., 338 S.W.2d 863. As to the Kansas c......
-
State v. Drake
...of error made in his motion for new trial and all matters previously considered record proper set out in Rule 28.02, 42 V.A.M.S. State v. Pitts, Mo.Sup., 282 S.W.2d 561. The evidence was substantially the same as in State v. Brown, supra, as to the facts of someone breaking into the rear of......