State v. Sayre, 52820
| Decision Date | 13 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 52820,52820,2 |
| Citation | 420 S.W.2d 303 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jackie Wayne SAYRE, Appellant |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., O. Hampton Stevens, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
George A. Adolf, St. Louis, for appellant.
STOCKARD, Commissioner.
Defendant was charged by information with assault with intent to kill with malice. Defendant appeared before the court with counsel on October 18, 1965, and withdrew his previous plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. The record does not affirmatively show that before accepting the plea of guilty the trial court determined that the plea was made voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge. See Criminal Rule 26.04, V.A.M.R. Imposition of sentence was deferred to November 23, 1965 'to permit (defendant) to make an application for parole.' For some reason, not shown by the record, sentence was not pronounced until June 8, 1966, and on that day the court sentenced defendant to five years in the custody of the department of corrections. On the same day defendant also entered a plea of guilty to the charge of burglary, second degree, and stealing, and was sentenced to two years in the custody of the department of corrections, that sentence to run concurrently with the five year sentence.
On January 23, 1967, defendant filed pro se a motion pursuant to Criminal Rule 27.26 to vacate and set aside the judgment and sentence of five years on the grounds that (1) the information failed to charge the offense of assault with intent to kill with malice, and (2) defendant was advised by his attorney that if he would enter a plea of guilty he would be released on parole, and therefore (by inference from the allegations in the motion) the plea of guilty was not voluntarily made. On January 24, defendant's motion was denied without a hearing, and defendant filed his notice of appeal. Thereafter, counsel was appointed to represent defendant on this appeal.
There is only one assignment of error in defendant's brief to this court, and it is that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty because 'the court had failed to fully inform appellant of the nature of the crime with which he was charged and the consequences of pleading guilty to it, in violation of due process of law, and therefore, should not have accepted such plea.' Apparently, after consideration, counsel has abandoned the contention made in the motion that the information was insufficient.
As previously noted, the record does not show a substantial compliance by the trial court with Rule 25.04 prior to the acceptance of the plea of guilty to the charge of assault with intent to kill with malice. However, in State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCrary v. State
...granted) 2. Remand for evidentiary hearing on voluntariness. State v. Rose, 440 S.W.2d 441 (Mo.1969)--assured of probation State v. Sayre, 420 S.W.2d 303 (Mo.1967) B. Ineffective Assistance of 1. Holbert v. State, 439 S.W.2d 507 (Mo.1969) (remand for hearing) State v. Keeble, 427 S.W.2d 404......
-
Winford v. State, 56319
...and was made with an understanding of the nature of the charge, then no manifest injustice could have resulted.' State v. Sayre, Mo.Sup., 420 S.W.2d 303, 304, 305. See also the more recent cases of Schuler v. State, Mo.Sup., 476 S.W.2d 596; Peterson v. State, Mo.Sup., 476 S.W.2d 608, and Ty......
-
State v. Reese
...the rule are too well known to require extensive repetitive statement in this opinion. See Drew v. State, Mo., 436 S.W.2d 727; State v. Sayre, Mo., 420 S.W.2d 303; Mooney v. State, Mo., 433 S.W.2d 542; Crosswhite v. State, Mo., 426 S.W.2d 67, l.c. 70; State v. Mountjoy, Mo., 420 S.W.2d 316;......
-
Robinson v. State, 56987
...the pleas of guilty were entered but also to the transcript of the 27.26 hearing. State v. Mountjoy, Mo.Sup.,420 S.W.2d 316; State v. Sayre, Mo.Sup., 420 S.W.2d 303; State v. Davis, Mo.Sup., 438 S.W.2d 232; Drew v. State, Mo.Sup., 436 S.W.2d 727; State v. Grimm, Mo.Sup., 461 S.W.2d 746(2); ......