State v. Puckett, 48872
| Decision Date | 21 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 48872,48872 |
| Citation | 691 S.W.2d 491 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ronald L. PUCKETT, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Michael Radosevich, Columbia, for appellant.
William Webster, Atty. Gen., Mark A. Richardson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant Ronald L. Puckett appeals his jury conviction of second degree burglary, § 569.170 RSMo 1978 and stealing § 570.030 RSMo 1978. The trial court sentenced the defendant as a prior offender under § 558.016 RSMo 1978 to a term of imprisonment of seven years on each count, the sentences to run consecutively.
On appeal defendant raises two points as grounds for reversal. First, he contends that the state's evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Second, he contends that the trial court erred in refusing to disqualify the prosecuting attorney who had served as counsel for defendant in a separate criminal proceeding ten years earlier.
On review, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Jelks, 672 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Mo.App.1984). Where the essential elements of the state's cases are circumstantial, the facts and circumstances upon which the state relies must be consistent with defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any reasonable theory of innocence. Id. In viewing such facts and circumstances, we keep in mind that a conviction based on circumstantial evidence may rest on cumulative, interdependent facts, no one of which alone would create more than a suspicion of guilt. State v. Jackson, 519 S.W.2d 551, 557 (Mo.App.1975).
Appellant offered no evidence at trial. Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict the state's evidence showed the following: On January 5, 1983, Carl Gunnett locked and left his home to go to his shop. When he returned at 11:00 a.m., he discovered that his home had been burglarized and that several items including a T.V. set, food, clothing, and a brown Datsun automobile were missing.
A highway patrolman stationed nine miles from the Gunnett residence on Highway T saw an east bound brown Datsun at approximately 11:00 a.m. The driver of vehicle made an aborted attempt to turn onto a road and then resumed its east bound course. The Datsun, travelling approximately 20-25 miles per hour passed within thirty feet of the patrol car. The passenger turned his head as the auto passed, the officer was able to directly view his face during this period.
The patrolman decided to pull over the suspicious auto, however, when he turned his siren and lights on the Datsun accelerated. A two and half mile chase ensued. The Datsun then collided with a stop sign, and the officer saw the two occupants leap from the auto and flee into a nearby woods.
An examination of the Gunnett residence revealed that the breaking and entry had been through the screen window in the south bedroom. Gunnett testified that the defendant had previously been employed by him to install a motor in his van. Upon learning that the defendant had no place to live, Gunnett invited him to stay in his home. The defendant resided at Gunnett's for a month in the south bedroom several months prior to the burglary. Later, Mr. Gunnett identified the abandoned Datsun, the T.V., skill saw, case of liquor, canned goods, meat, guns, moon boots, and clothing found within it as his property.
The evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it, establish the following conclusions: (1) the defendant had been employed by Mr. Gunnett and lived in his home. He was therefore familiar with the premises; (2) several months later the home was burglarized, the point of entry was the window screen in the bedroom that defendant has previously occupied; (3) several items of personal property and a brown Datsun were taken from the premises; (4) a highway patrolman stationed nine miles from the Gunnett home saw the defendant in the passenger seat of the stolen vehicle turn and face him. The car passed within thirty feet of the patrol car traveling at a speed of 20-25 miles per hour; and (5) Mr. Gunnett later identified the abandoned...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Keenan v. Hatcher
...be used to the detriment of the defendant. See, e.g., Crawford v. State, 840 P.2d 627, 637-38 (Okla.Crim.App. 1992); State v. Puckett, 691 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Mo.Ct.App.1985); Williams v. State, 278 Ark. 9, 13, 642 S.W.2d 887, 890 (1982); Cole v. Commonwealth, 553 S.W.2d 468, 472 (1977). We di......
-
Stafford v. Vandergriff
... ... § 2254 ... for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. (ECF ... No. 1.) Petitioner is incarcerated at the Eastern Reception, ... established by the laws of physics or mechanics ... ” ... State v. Puckett , 691 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Mo. App. E.D ... 1985) (citing State v. Duncan , 540 S.W.2d 130, 134 ... ...
-
State v. Clark
...however, has been rejected by the courts of this state in State v. O'Neill, 825 S.W.2d 376, 377 (Mo.App.1992), and State v. Puckett, 691 S.W.2d 491, 494 (Mo.App.1985). The Puckett court stated that use of the prior conviction in which the prosecutor was involved as counsel for defendant to ......
-
Conservatorship Estate of Moehlenpah, Matter of
...outside influence." Link at 497. "A motion to disqualify is necessarily directed to the trial court's discretion." State v. Puckett, 691 S.W.2d 491, 494[7, 8] (Mo.App.1985). Petitioners' verified motion to disqualify Roth was based upon the fact that Roth was employed by Virginia to enter h......