State v. Riggs
| Decision Date | 28 March 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 54847,54847 |
| Citation | 770 S.W.2d 361 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Clifford RIGGS, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Holly G. Simons, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Clifford Riggs (defendant) appeals from his convictions, based on pleas of guilty to two counts of Deviate Sexual Assault in the First Degree, § 566.070, RSMo 1986. Defendant was sentenced to three years' imprisonment on each count with the sentences to run concurrently. We affirm.
Defendant was charged by grand jury indictment with four counts of deviate sexual assault in the first degree (Counts I-IV) and one count of sodomy (Count V). As a result of plea negotiations, defendant pled guilty to Counts I and II. In exchange, the State entered a memorandum of Nolle Prosequi with regards to Counts III, IV and V, and recommended concurrent three-year sentences for Counts I and II.
Defendant now asserts the indictment charging him was fatally defective, because it was factually insufficient to protect him from future prosecution based on the same conduct. Thus, he contends his guilty pleas were erroneously accepted by the trial court.
The alleged problem with the indictments is they read exactly the same:
The Grand Jurors, of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, charge that the defendant, in violation of Section 566.070, RSMo, committed the class C felony of deviate sexual assault in the first degree, punishable upon conviction under Sections 558.011.1(3) and 560.011, RSMo, in that between March 11, 1985 and March 2, 1986, in the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri, the defendant had deviate sexual intercourse with D.B., to whom the defendant was not married and who was then fourteen years old.
The plea hearing record reveals that each count was charged for a different act: defendant had placed his mouth on the victim's vagina, and had placed his penis in the victim's mouth. Defendant admitted these were the facts of each crime.
If defendant had committed only one act, either Count I or Count II standing alone would have been sufficient to charge him with the crime. Each charge follows the language of MACH-CR and standing alone, satisfies the requirement for the content of an indictment set forth in Rule 23.01(b). State v. Burch, 740 S.W.2d 293, 294-295 (Mo.App.1987). The failure of either indictment to allege the specific combination of body parts through which defendant committed deviate sexual intercourse need not have been particularized to enable the defendant to meet the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morrow, 18935
...not invalidate either count, State v. Martin, 852 S.W.2d 844, 856 (Mo.App.1992), or render either count insufficient, State v. Riggs, 770 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Mo.App.1989). The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be......
-
State v. Martin
...provided by the state. The identical language of counts I and II of the information does not invalidate either count. State v. Riggs, 770 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Mo.App.1989). Additionally, the identical language of the two counts does not, alone, entitle the defendant to a bill of particulars if ......
-
State v. Williams
...W.D. 1992) (identical language used in multiple counts of the same information does not invalidate either count); State v. Riggs , 770 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989) (affirming a conviction where the indictment used identical language in multiple counts because "[t]his record protects......