State v. Wright, WD
| Decision Date | 08 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 763 S.W.2d 167 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Maureen WRIGHT, Appellant. 39867. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Donald W. Petty, Gladstone, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Robert V. Franson (argued), Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before COVINGTON, P.J., and NUGENT and GAITAN, JJ.
Defendant Maureen Wright appeals from her conviction on February 18, 1987, of felony possession of marijuana, § 195.020. On September 14, 1987, the trial court sentenced her to five years imprisonment and fined her one thousand dollars. From this conviction and sentence the defendant appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Highway Patrol Troopers James Ripley and Lt. Harold Battmer stopped a rented car driven by co-defendant Rudolph Allen for speeding. Ms. Wright, who had rented the car in her name, sat in the passenger seat. Mr. Allen's responses to Trooper Ripley's general questions, particularly the fact that he did not know his "girlfriend's" name aroused the trooper's suspicion. Both Mr. Allen and Ms. Wright orally consented to the trooper's request to search the car, but both refused to sign the consent form.
The search of the trunk revealed a large trash bag containing one-pound bags of marijuana, one of which was immediately visible upon opening the trunk. The troopers also found some clothing belonging to Ms. Wright in the trunk.
The court held a pretrial hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence taken in the search of the car. Both Ms. Wright and Mr. Allen denied having given their oral consent to the search. Trooper Ripley testified that Mr. Allen told him, when he asked for permission to search the car. However, Mr. Allen refused to sign the consent form, stating that because Ms. Wright held the lease, she should make the decision. Ms. Wright agreed to allow Ripley to search the car, but she also refused to sign the consent form. The trial judge stated that he believed the testimony of Trooper Ripley. Finding that the defendants' oral consent was sufficient to support the search, he overruled the motion to suppress.
After a trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against both defendants. In State v. Allen, 744 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.App.1988), we affirmed the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress. Nevertheless, we reversed Mr. Allen's conviction, finding the evidence insufficient to support his conviction.
Following her conviction, Ms. Wright posted bond and was released on February 18, 1987, pending sentencing. She failed to appear for sentencing on March 31, 1987, however, and the court issued a capias warrant for her arrest. The Lafayette County Sheriff arrested her on September 14, 1987. On that date the court sentenced her to five years in prison. This appeal followed.
On appeal the defendant argues that the trial court erred in overruling her motion to suppress the evidence and that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. Before reaching the merits, however, we must consider the state's motion to dismiss the appeal. The state argues that by failing to appear for her sentencing and remaining at large for five and one-half months the defendant forfeited her right to appeal. We agree.
The "escape rule" operates to deny the right of appeal to one who, following a conviction, has attempted to escape justice. Several rationales support this rule. In State v. Carter, 98 Mo. 431, 11 S.W. 979 (1889), the first Missouri case to apply the escape rule, the court discussed its need for control over the defendant before rendering its decision on the appeal. Without such control the defendant "places himself in a position to speculate on the chances of reversal, meanwhile keeping out of the reach of justice, and prepared to render the judgment of reversal nugatory or not, at his option." Id. 11 S.W. at 980. Ms. Wright who has been returned to custody, no longer has this option. Therefore, the Carter rationale does not apply to her case hand.
A second rationale for the escape rule appears in State v. Kearns, 743 S.W.2d 553 (Mo.App.1987). In Kearns the defendant, who remained free on bond following his conviction, failed to appear for sentencing and remained at large for nearly six years. The court noted the inapplicability of the control rationale of Carter but found that administrative problems caused by the defendant's long absence justified a finding that he had forfeited his right to appeal. Id. at 554. Additionally, the long delay created "almost certain prejudice to the state in the event of a remand for a new trial." Id. The court advanced other reasons for the rule including: discouraging escape, encouraging surrender, and promoting the dignified operation of the appellate court. Id. at 555 (citing United States v. Puzzanghera, 820 F.2d 25...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Branch v. Turner
...from trial court caused administrative complications in appellate court and would prejudice state on retrial); State v. Wright, 763 S.W.2d 167, 168 (Mo.Ct.App.1988) (dismissing defendant's appeal after defendant's five-month flight delayed filing of the appeal). Missouri appellate courts re......
-
Hicks v. State
...applies even though a defendant has been returned to custody. State v. Schleeper, 806 S.W.2d 459, 460 (Mo.App.1991) ; State v. Wright, 763 S.W.2d 167, 168 (Mo.App.1988); Kearns, 743 S.W.2d at Applicability of the escape rule is not limited to dismissal of appeals on the merits but also to m......
-
State v. Lundahl
...State v. Gurican, 576 So.2d 709 (Fla.1991); People v. Partee, 125 Ill.2d 24, 125 Ill.Dec. 302, 530 N.E.2d 460 (1988); State v. Wright, 763 S.W.2d 167 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Johnson, 105 Wash.2d 92, 711 P.2d 1017 (1986); State v. Rogers, 189 W.Va. 730, 434 S.E.2d 402 (1993); State v. Bono, ......
-
Wartenbe v. State
...that "[t]hose who seek the protection of this legal system m u s t ... be willing to abide by its rules and decisions." State v. Wright, 763 S.W.2d 167, 168-69 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988) : see Troupe, 891 S.W.2d at 810. The court may apply the escape rule equally to persons who avoid impending or......