State v. Williams, 48408
| Decision Date | 13 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 48408,48408 |
| Citation | 673 S.W.2d 847 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Maurice WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Stormy Barton White, Public Defender, Clayton, for defendant-appellant.
John Munson Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant has appealed from a judgment of conviction and a sentence of twenty-five years' imprisonment for robbery in the first degree. After the notice of appeal was filed, defendant filed a motion in this Court requesting that jurisdiction be "returned" to the trial court for the purpose of hearing a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
The evidence is detailed in the motion filed in this Court. Although we do not set it forth here, we note that, if believed, the newly discovered evidence would completely exonerate defendant of any complicity in the crime of which he was convicted. In response to this motion, the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County has filed an affidavit to the effect that the "information contained" in defendant's motion "is true and accurate to the best of the affiant's knowledge and belief" and agreeing "that the return of jurisdiction to the trial court will expedite the appropriate resolution of this matter." The Attorney General has likewise filed an affidavit agreeing that jurisdiction should be returned to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a hearing on a motion for new trial based on the newly discovered evidence.
Under the unique circumstances of this case, we are willing to overlook the time constraints of Rule 29.11 as they relate to the newly discovered evidence. The basis of the granting of relief for such reason is that it was not known, or could not reasonably have been discovered earlier. That this evidence was not discovered before the expiration of the time for the filing of a motion for new trial should not defeat the laudable concept of a new trial based on such evidence. This ruling may be subject to future limitation, but we see no reason for limitation where the State joins in the request for release.
Mindful though we are of the exclusivity of this Court's jurisdiction once a notice of appeal is properly filed, we are equally cognizant of the perversion of justice which could occur if we were to close our eyes to the existence of the newly discovered evidence. Although...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Byrd v. Armontrout
...and is limited to extraordinary circumstances. State v. Davis, 698 S.W.2d 600, 603 (Mo.App.1985). In Mooney and in State v. Williams, 673 S.W.2d 847 (Mo.App. 1984), the Missouri Court of Appeals did remand the cases to permit the criminal defendants to file new trial motions based upon new ......
-
State v. Skillicorn
...claim of error have no similarity whatever to Skillicorn's case. See State v. Mooney, 670 S.W.2d 510 (Mo.Ct.App.1984); State v. Williams, 673 S.W.2d 847 (Mo.Ct.App.1984). Once the time within which to file a motion for new trial has expired, a remedy no longer lies through direct appeal. Wi......
-
State v. NYLON
...rules, this Court has the "responsibility to avoid a `perversion of justice.'" Terry, 304 S.W.3d at 110 (quoting State v. Williams, 673 S.W.2d 847, 848 (Mo.App. E.D.1984)). Appellate courts also "have the inherent power to prevent miscarriages of justices" in certain cases of newly discover......
-
Wilson v. ANR Freight Systems, Inc.
...and that without his testimony [the] accused would not have been convicted, a new trial will be granted." Id. at 501. In State v. Williams, 673 S.W.2d 847 (Mo.App.1984), both the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County and the Missouri Attorney General agreed that jurisdiction should be re......