State v. Roach, 56740
| Decision Date | 12 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 56740,No. 1,56740,1 |
| Citation | 480 S.W.2d 841 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. William Dane ROACH, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Terry C. Allen, Poplar Bluff, for appellant William Dane Roach.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
By information in the Butler County Circuit Court, William Dane Roach was charged with driving while intoxicated and having had three prior convictions for that offense. § 564.440, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. He was found guilty by a jury and the court fixed the punishment at five years' imprisonment.
On June 28, 1970, Roach, while driving an automobile on Route 142 in Butler County, drove his auto into the rear of a truck driven by Willard Crook. Roach was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. He was released on bond but was rearrested July 10 on another charge. He waived preliminary hearing on the driving while intoxicated charge and an information charging the offense was filed August 13, 1970. The case was set for trial November 30. On that date defendant appeared in court with his attorney who asked leave to withdraw which was granted and defendant was granted additional time to obtain an attorney.
On December 28, 1970, other counsel employed by defendant moved to remand the matter to the magistrate court for a preliminary hearing on the grounds that the attorney of record who purported to waive preliminary had not actually been employed by defendant. The motion was sustained and the matter remanded to the magistrate court on January 12, 1971. A preliminary hearing was held on January 28 and defendant was again bound over to the circuit court. On January 29, 1971, a new information was filed in the circuit court.
On March 8, 1971, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the cause, alleging that he had been incarcerated in the Butler County jail since July 10, 1970 and that he had not been brought to trial within two terms of court. The motion was overruled on March 12, on which date trial was held and defendant convicted.
On this appeal, appellant assigns as error the overruling of his motion to dismiss on the grounds that appellant was not brought to trial within the time prescribed by § 545.890, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. Section 545.890 requires in some circumstances the discharge of a person indicted and committed to prison if he is not brought to trial within two terms after the indictment is found. The Butler County Circuit Court has four terms of court (the first Mondays in January, April, July and October, § 478.297, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.) and therefore § 545.920 applies and extends the time for trial to three terms. However, defendant would not have been entitled to be discharged under either § 545.890 or § 545.920 because he was brought to trial before the end of the second term following the filing of the original information at the July, 1970 term. The term at which the information was filed is not included in the computation. State v. Lillibridge, Mo.Sup., 459 S.W.2d 288, 290(3, 4). The October term passed but trial in the January term was within the two-term limit. There is no need to consider the effect, insofar as the claim here is concerned, of the defendant's motion to remand for a preliminary hearing which was sustained and in fact produced a new information at the January term. See State v. Morton, Mo.Sup., 444 S.W.2d 420, 424(7, 8).
Appellant's contention is without merit and the trial court properly overruled the motion to dismiss.
In this appeal, appellant also advances, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Strong
...him of his constitutional right to a speedy trial and a violation of due process. In Caffey, supra, and more recently in State v. Roach, Mo., 480 S.W.2d 841, the rule is set forth that the right to a speedy trial does not begin until the information is filed. (Our emphasis.) Here, the infor......
-
State v. Eaton, 57593
...the verdict the reviewing court does not weigh the State's evidence against the contrary evidence offered by the defendant. State v. Roach, 480 S.W.2d 841 (Mo.1972). The scope of appellate review extends only to a determination of whether there is sufficient substantial evidence to support ......
-
State v. Paxton, KCD
...requires the passage of three full terms to raise the bar of the statute. State v. Strong, 484 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Mo.1972); State v. Roach, 480 S.W.2d 841 (Mo.1972). In any event, such three-term period is commenced only when charges are filed and the defendant is arrested or committed. It ha......
-
Kansas City v. Ramsey, KCD
...symptoms of intoxication observed and testified to by Officers Fracassa and Owings. The officers' testimony was substantial, State v. Roach, 480 S.W.2d 841 (Mo.1972); State v. Persell, 468 S.W.2d 719, 721(1) (Mo.App.1971), and the trial court was privileged to accept it to the exclusion of ......