State v. York
| Decision Date | 22 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 58129,No. 1,58129,1 |
| Citation | 511 S.W.2d 758 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ray YORK, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Stephen D. Hoyne, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Donald R. Tharp, Platte City, for appellant.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Ray York was convicted by the court following jury-waived trial of attempting to obtain money by means of a bogus check. His punishment was assessed at three years' imprisonment, and sentence and judgment were rendered accordingly. Rule 26.01, V.A.M.R.; § 561.450, RSMo 1969. Appellant asserts presence of questions involving construction of the Constitutions of the United States and Missouri. Jurisdiction on that ground is questionable; however, the case, pending since October 9, 1972, has been retained for decision in the interest of conserving time. See order, Supreme Court en banc, April 9, 1973.
Appellant does not question the sufficiency of evidence to sustain his conviction; and the court reasonably could find that on October 14, 1969, Ray York attempted to obtain $175.85 from E. H. Young d/b/a Riverside Red X, Riverside, Platte County, Missouri, by presenting a check stolen from Industrial Battery Service Company purportedly drawn in favor of and endorsed by Ronald Wilson. State v. Fraley, 369 S.W.2d 195 (Mo.1963).
Nor does appellant assert any error in his trial. His complaints are limited to assertions of failure to accord him a speedy trial.
In October, 1969, a felony complaint (Rule 21.08) was filed in the Magistrate Court of Platte County, Missouri, charging Ray York with attempting to obtain money by means of a bogus check. He was arrested and posted bond. . while on bond he left Missouri and was later arrested in Cook County, Illinois, and returned to the United States Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, arriving there March 27, 1971, to serve until February 19, 1974, the remainder of a federal sentence from which he had been previously paroled.
On May 5, 1971, the federal penitentiary acknowledged receipt of warrant No. 27443 for Ray York from the Sheriff of Platte County, Missouri, dated November 18, 1969, on the charge of foregery.
On May _ _, 1971 (presumably May 5, 1971), Ray York wrote to the 'circuit Attorney,' Platte County, Platte City, Missouri:
'Dear Sir:
* * *
* * *
On May 21, 1971, the prosecuting attorney wrote in reply to the foregoing letter: 'I am sorry that I am unable to dismiss the pending Platte County charge against you.'
On December 27, 1971, Ray York acknowledged receipt from the federal penitentiary of form 'Notice of Untried Indictment, Information or Complaint and of Right to Request Disposition.' This notice, pursuant to the federal Agreement on Detainers, 84 Stat. 1397, enacted December 9, 1970, effective 90 days thereafter (March 9, 1971) 1, advised Ray York of the existence of warrant No. 27443, his right to request the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court that a final disposition be made by any pending indictment, information, or complaint, and that he must be brought to trial within 180 days after receipt of such notice and request.
On March 27, 1972, the federal penitentiary forwarded to the Prosecuting Attorney and Magistrate Court of Platte County, Missouri, Ray York's formal 'Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Request for Disposition of Indictments, Informations or Complaints,' pursuant to the Agreement on Detainers, 84 Stat. 1397, §§ 222.160--22.220, RSMo 1969.
On July 5, 1972, in the Magistrate Court of Platte County, Missouri, Ray York filed Motion to Dismiss 'on constitutional grounds' all charges pending against him. The motion was overruled July 7, 1972.
On September 1, 1972, pursuant to the Agreement on Detainers, Ray York was delivered by the federal penitentiary to the Sheriff of Platte County for preliminary examination on felony complaints for which warrant No. 27443 had been issued.
On September 5, 1972, Ray York was arraigned in the magistrate court, and Mr. Donald R. Tharp was appointed as counsel for defendant.
On September 13, 1972, preliminary examination was accorded Ray York on the pending complaints. Two complaints were dismissed by the State, and defendant was ordered held for trial in the Circuit Court of Platte County on the third complaint.
On September 14, 1972, information on the aforesaid complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri; defendant was arraigned; a plea of not guilty was entered; and trial was set for September 22, 1972.
On September 18, 1972, defendant filed his Motion to Dismiss on grounds of failure to accord his constitutional right to a speedy trial and violation of his rights under the Agreement on Detainers. On the same date a hearing on the motion was accorded, after which the court denied the motion.
On September 22, 1972, defendant waived jury trial and renewed his Motion to Dismiss. The motion was overruled, trial was to the court sitting as a jury, and defendant was found guilty as charged.
Defendant's after-trial motions, including renewal of the Motion to Dismiss, were duly heard, considered, and overruled, after which allocution was granted and defendant was duly sentenced.
Appellant contends (1) that the time elapsed between May 5, 1971, when he wrote the prosecuting attorney from the federal penitentiary, and his trial September 22, 1972, violated his right to a speedy trial and denied him due process of law under Amendments VI and XIV, United States Constitution, and Article I, Section 18(a), Constitution of Missouri, 1945, V.A.M.S.
Appellant recognizes, citing United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 86 S.Ct. 773, 15 L.Ed.2d 627 (1966), that the right to a speedy trial is relative and depends on the circumstances present in each case.
With respect to Point I, the governing circumstances and incidents are:
October...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Black
...would not be activated until the information was filed on January 7, 1977, State v. Caffey, 438 S.W.2d 167, 171 (Mo.1969); State v. York, 511 S.W.2d 758, 761 (Mo.1974); 3 thus, limiting the delay to approximately 8 We resolve this conflict by considering the basic purpose and policy underly......
-
Dillard v. State
...apply to pending complaints which represent only a possibility that a criminal indictment or information will be filed." State v. York, 511 S.W.2d 758, 761 (Mo.1974) (three-year delay from time of felony complaint until time of trial did not violate right to speedy trial because trial was h......
-
State v. Gardner
...trial provision of the Sixth Amendment.' United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971); State v. York, 511 S.W.2d 758, 761(1) (Mo.1974); State v. Odzark, 532 S.W.2d 45 (Mo.App.1976). Therefore, defendant's reliance on the Sixth Amendment to support the claim tha......
-
State v. Manard, 13512
...806 (Mo. banc 1983). Nor did it commence upon the filing of a complaint in the associate division of the circuit court. State v. York, 511 S.W.2d 758 (Mo.1974); State v. Black, 587 S.W.2d 865 (Mo.App.1979). The appellant fastens upon that date because he was initially arrested immediately a......