State v. Worley, No. 50842

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtEAGER
Citation383 S.W.2d 529
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Earl Vandyne WORLEY, Appellant
Docket NumberNo. 2,No. 50842
Decision Date09 November 1964

Page 529

383 S.W.2d 529
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Earl Vandyne WORLEY, Appellant.
No. 50842.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.
Nov. 9, 1964.

Page 531

Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., George W. Draper, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Earl Vandyne Worley, appellant, pro se.

EAGER, Judge.

On October 19, 1962, defendant was found guilty by a jury of illegal possession of a narcotic drug. Upon a finding by the Court of prior felony convictions, he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years. The judgment was affirmed upon appeal, the opinion of this Court appearing at 375 S.W.2d 44. On or about May 1, 1964, defendant filed in the Circuit Court his motion to vacate the judgment and sentence, pursuant to our Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R. On May 7, 1964, this motion was denied in an order which will be referred to later. The present appeal is from that order.

By reference to our prior opinion it will be seen that the arresting officer, attracted by suspicious actions of the defendant, ordered five men out of a car, questioned them briefly, and then noticed a 'small brown paper package' on the floor in front of the rear seat of the car; the officer picked it up and asked 'to whom it belonged.' This officer testified at the trial that defendant said that 'it was his' and that he had bought the contents earlier that evening; thereupon he was arrested. The contents proved to be marijuana. Defendant offered no evidence at the trial. The principal questions decided were that the circumstances constituted sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti to justify the admission of defendant's statements, and that these, together with his statements, warranted an inference of possession and supported such a finding. Defendant was represented both at the trial and on appeal by competent appointed counsel, and a brief was filed here on his behalf.

We quote in full the points submitted by defendant in his motion to vacate: '(1) The trial and conviction of this movant was based on a perjured testimony knowingly procured by the prosecuting attorney. (2) Movant was denied the right to have witnesses in his favor. (3) Movant was denied the right to councel at his preliminary hearing. (4) Movant was arrested and detained over twenty (20) hours without a warrent being issued. (5) Prejudice jurors were also used to obtain a conviction against this movant, the same being a relative to the prosecuting attorney.' In his pro se brief filed here defendant alludes to other matters, to which, in so far as they may constitute actual statements of fact, we shall refer.

As stated in the case of State v. Statler, Mo., 383 S.W.2d 534, opinion filed October 12, 1964, we recognize that a judgment obtained by the knowing use of perjured testimony should be vacated upon a proper factual showing, but not upon the statement of mere conclusions. The applicable authorities were cited in that opinion. There would be no point in discussing the cases which defendant now cites, supposedly in support of that rule. The rule also applies where the State, knowing at the trial that material false testimony has come in, fails to correct it. Statler, supra. In the present case defendant states that the arresting officer, Fred Abernathy, testified at his preliminary hearing that he found the package on the ground under the car;

Page 532

further, that the transcripts of the preliminary hearing and of the trial 'will substantiate' the allegation. In his brief here defendant also asserts that at the preliminary hearing the officer did not mention any admissions made by the defendant. In the order of the trial court denying this motion (without hearing evidence) the following appears: '* * * the movant states in the application 'the transcript of movants preliminary hearing and the transcript of movants trial will substantiate each and every word of the foregoing allegation and will prove that movant was convicted solely on perjured testimony; and that such testimony was procured knowingly by the prosecuting attorney.' This allegation shows on its face that it's based upon and sought to be proven by the transcript of the records in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Com. v. Campbell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 27, 1967
    ...Nietsche, as only an occasional passenger in the car, also lacks standing to contest the legality of the search. State v. Worley, 383 S.W.2d 529, 534 The evidence is also admissible for the second reason that Amberman consented to all that occurred to the car after he was approached by the ......
  • State v. Davis, No. 51527
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 14, 1966
    ...State v. Williams, Mo., 369 S.W.2d 408; State v. Goacher, Mo., 376 S.W.2d 97; State v. King, Mo., 380 S.W.2d 370; State v. Worley, Mo., 383 S.W.2d 529; State v. Bryant, Mo., 375 S.W.2d 122, and Donnell, supra. It was shown here, without controversy, that defendant was advised that he did no......
  • State v. Keeble, No. 51315
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 14, 1966
    ...does not per se invalidate a judgment of conviction. The matter is discussed in State v. King, Mo., 380 S.W.2d 370; State v. Worley, Mo., 383 S.W.2d 529; State v. Bryant, Mo., 375 S.W.2d 122, and State v. Donnell, Mo., 387 S.W.2d 508. In State v. King, supra, the court said, 380 S.W.2d at l......
  • State v. Caffey, Nos. 49364
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 14, 1970
    ...412 S.W.2d 184; State v. Webb, Mo.Sup., 400 S.W.2d 84(3, 4); State v. Engberg, Mo.Sup., 391 S.W.2d 868; State v. Worley, Mo.Sup., 383 S.W.2d 529, 533; State v. Kackley, Mo.Sup., 391 S.W.2d 350; State v. Durham, Mo.Sup., 386 S.W.2d 360, cert. den. 382 U.S. 857, 86 S.Ct. 110, 15 L.Ed.2d 94, a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Com. v. Campbell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • April 27, 1967
    ...Nietsche, as only an occasional passenger in the car, also lacks standing to contest the legality of the search. State v. Worley, 383 S.W.2d 529, 534 The evidence is also admissible for the second reason that Amberman consented to all that occurred to the car after he was approached by the ......
  • State v. Davis, No. 51527
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 14, 1966
    ...State v. Williams, Mo., 369 S.W.2d 408; State v. Goacher, Mo., 376 S.W.2d 97; State v. King, Mo., 380 S.W.2d 370; State v. Worley, Mo., 383 S.W.2d 529; State v. Bryant, Mo., 375 S.W.2d 122, and Donnell, supra. It was shown here, without controversy, that defendant was advised that he did no......
  • State v. Keeble, No. 51315
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 14, 1966
    ...does not per se invalidate a judgment of conviction. The matter is discussed in State v. King, Mo., 380 S.W.2d 370; State v. Worley, Mo., 383 S.W.2d 529; State v. Bryant, Mo., 375 S.W.2d 122, and State v. Donnell, Mo., 387 S.W.2d 508. In State v. King, supra, the court said, 380 S.W.2d at l......
  • State v. Caffey, Nos. 49364
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 14, 1970
    ...412 S.W.2d 184; State v. Webb, Mo.Sup., 400 S.W.2d 84(3, 4); State v. Engberg, Mo.Sup., 391 S.W.2d 868; State v. Worley, Mo.Sup., 383 S.W.2d 529, 533; State v. Kackley, Mo.Sup., 391 S.W.2d 350; State v. Durham, Mo.Sup., 386 S.W.2d 360, cert. den. 382 U.S. 857, 86 S.Ct. 110, 15 L.Ed.2d 94, a......
  • 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