State v. Sevier

Decision Date12 June 1935
Docket NumberNo. 34061.,34061.
Citation83 S.W.2d 581
PartiesSTATE ex rel. DUTTON, Sheriff, v. SEVIER, Judge, et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and W. O. Sawyers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for relator.

Irwin & Bushman, of Jefferson City, for respondents.

FRANK, Chief Justice.

Certiorari to bring up the record of a habeas corpus proceeding from the circuit court of Cole county. One Lee Swick was charged by information in the circuit court of Vernon county with the crime of assault with intent to kill. On March 19, 1934, he entered a plea of guilty to said charge, and was sentenced to serve a term of twelve years in the penitentiary. After his confinement in the penitentiary under said sentence, he brought habeas corpus in the circuit court of Cole county. After hearing the evidence in the habeas corpus proceeding, the circuit court rendered judgment therein, which, omitting formal parts, reads as follows: "* * * the court having seen and heard the proofs adduced, doth find that the petitioner is unlawfully restrained by the respondents; the court doth further find that petitioner stands charged with a crime and on that account cannot be discharged but is remanded to the sheriff of Vernon County, Missouri, to be dealt with according to law."

The charge to which petitioner entered a plea of guilty is contained in the following information: "Dewey Routh, Prosecuting Attorney within and for Vernon County, and State of Missouri, upon his oath of office informs the Court that on or about the 11th day of March, 1934, in the said County of Vernon and State of Missouri, the Defendants, Lee Swick and Roy Fagor, did then and there wilfully and feloniously, and upon the bodies of one Woody Stonum and one C. N. Dutton, then and there being feloniously, on purpose and wilfully, and with a deadly weapon, to wit, an automatic pistol, loaded with gun powder and leaden balls, which they, the said Lee Swick and Roy Fagor, then and there had and held, did then and there make an assault with the intent they, the said Woody Stonum and C. N. Dutton, then and there to kill, contrary to the form of the Statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Missouri."

The crime of assault with intent to kill may be charged to have been committed either with or without malice aforethought. If malice aforethought is charged, then upon conviction or a plea of guilty to the charge, section 4014, R. S. 1929 (Mo. St. Ann. § 4014, p. 2817), fixes the punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than two years. That section of the statute reads as follows: "Every person who shall, on purpose and of malice aforethought, shoot at or stab another, or assault or beat another with a deadly weapon, or by any other means or force likely to produce death or great bodily harm, with intent to kill, maim, ravish or rob such person, or in the attempt to commit any burglary or other felony, or in resisting the execution of legal process, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than two years. (R. S. 1919, § 3262.)"

On the other hand, if malice aforethought is not charged, then upon conviction or a plea of guilty to the charge, section 4015, R. S. 1929 (Mo. St. Ann. § 4015, p. 2821), fixes the punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five years. That section of the statute reads as follows: "Every person who shall be convicted of an assault with intent to kill, or to do great bodily harm, or to commit any robbery, rape, burglary, manslaughter or other felony, the punishment for which assault is not hereinbefore prescribed, shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five years, or in the county jail not less than six months, or by a fine not less than one hundred dollars and imprisonment in the county jail not less than three months, or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars. (R. S. 1919, § 3263.)"

We have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Whitfield
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 17, 2003
    ...corpus is a proper remedy." State ex rel. Osowski v. Purkett, 908 S.W.2d 690, 691 (Mo. banc 1995), citing, State ex rel. Dutton v. Sevier, 336 Mo. 1236, 83 S.W.2d 581, 582-83 (1935). In such a case, the rules regarding preservation of error by raising the error on direct appeal or in author......
  • Merriweather v. Grandison
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 5, 1995
    ...A sentence which is in excess of that authorized by law is beyond the jurisdiction of the sentencing court. In State ex rel. Dutton v. Sevier, 336 Mo. 1236, 83 S.W.2d 581 (1935), our Supreme Court had before it the petition of Lee Swick for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts were that Swick......
  • Griggs v. Venerable Sister Mary Help of Christians, 28261
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 1951
    ...S.W. 1025; In re Flukes, 157 Mo. 125, 57 S.W. 545, 51 L.R.A. 176; Dusenberg v. Rudolph, 325 Mo. 881, 30 S.W.2d 94; State ex rel. Dutton v. Sevier, 336 Mo. 1236, 83 S.W.2d 581. Measured by these tests, the case at bar would seem to fall into the pattern of cases in which the petitioner is re......
  • LaGore v. Ramsey
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 4, 1939
    ...judgment or sentence as to time or place. Ex parte Bethurum, 66 Mo. 545; Ex parte Cohen, 159 Mo. 662, 60 S.W. 1031; State ex rel. v. Sevier, 336 Mo. 1236, 83 S.W.2d 581. In Ex parte Bugg, supra, the Springfield Court of Appeals held that a stay of execution was invalid, but that, after a la......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT