State v. Rodgers
| Decision Date | 24 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 35841,35841 |
| Citation | 525 S.W.2d 447 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willis Louis RODGERS, Appellant. . Louis District, Division Two |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles D. Kitchin, Public Defender, Frederick R. Buckles, Marilyn K. Wallach, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., K. Preston Dean, II, Asst. Gen., Jefferson City, Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., John D. Chancellor, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
Appellant, Willis Louis Rodgers, was convicted in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, of Robbery in the First Degree by Means of a Dangerous and Deadly Weapon, §§ 560.120 and 560.135 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. The trial court further found that he was subject to the provisions of the Second Offender Act, § 556.280 RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., and pursuant thereto imposed a sentence of thirty-five years in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections upon him. This appeal followed.
Appellant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict and because of the disposition we make of his appeal it is unnecessary for us to burden this opinion with a recitation of the facts developed during the course of the trial. A study of the transcript of the testimony reveals overwhelming evidence to support the finding of the jury.
A Motion for New Trial was filed in the trial court on August 10, 1973, forty-three days after the entry of the jury verdict on June 28, 1973. Rule 27.20(a), V.A.M.R. requires that a Motion for New Trial be filed within ten days after return of the verdict. Upon application, the trial judge may extend the time for filing the Motion for New Trial for an additional period of thirty days, but he has no power to make another or further extension of the time for the filing of the Motion. No application for extension of time to file the Motion appears of record, and the trial judge overruled appellant's Motion for New Trial on the grounds it was not timely filed. Compliance with Rule 27.20(a) is mandatory and a Motion for New Trial filed out of time is a nullity and preserves nothing for review. State v. Clark, 432 S.W.2d 279, 281(1, 2) (Mo.1968).
Being cognizant of his plight, appellant has briefed two Points in this court which he prays we will consider under Rule 27.20(c) as 'plain error.' His first Point is that the trial judge, shortly after the commencement of the trial, remarked to the jury that he believed there was present in the courtroom a lady who was perhaps the mother of the defendant; that she had a right to be there, but that she had a little baby in her arms which he, the Judge, had on good authority was not the defendant's child. Appellant argues that the defendant in a criminal case may not testify to his family status and whether he is married and the father of children since this tends to create sympathy in his behalf and therefore the Court should not be permitted to inject into the case and the jury's mind information of this nature which has no bearing on the issues in the case and tends to direct the jury's attention to matters which have no evidentiary value in the case. He argues that the reason the court made this remark was that it did not want the jury to be prejudiced by the fact that the defendant might be the father of the child. Thus, this remark constituted irrelevant and immaterial 'evidence' and his counsel's objection to it should have been sustained.
We are of the opinion that this remark was most certainly injudicious in light of the record before us. Nevertheless, at no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seales v. State
...court did not inquire whether defendant was prejudiced thereby, despite the fact that the evidence in the original trial, State v. Rodgers, 525 S.W.2d 447 (Mo.App.1975), was that defendant was caught red-handed and there was no defense to be made. Ineffective assistance of counsel was per s......
-
Rodgers v. Wyrick, 79-1792
...1971 convictions, assessed a sentence of thirty-five years. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Rodgers, 525 S.W.2d 447 (Mo.App.1975). On November 16, 1973, the probation granted Rodgers for his first convictions stealing from a person and assault with inten......
-
State v. Stamps, 37172
...reply to defense counsel's argument which is directed to discrediting the prosecution's case in the eyes of the jurors. State v. Rodgers, 525 S.W.2d 447 (Mo.App.1975). The trial court has broad discretion in permitting the use of retaliatory arguments. State v. Lacy, supra. We find no abuse......
-
State v. Conger, KCD
... ... In the light of these statements of the prosecutor, the court's instructions, and, indeed, the argument of defense counsel, the jury could not possibly have been misled as to the law on burden of proof. State v. Rodgers, 525 S.W.2d 447, 449(3, 4) (Mo.App.1975). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defense objection ... The cases cited by ... ...