State v. Young
| Decision Date | 11 December 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 48465,No. 2,48465,2 |
| Citation | 351 S.W.2d 732 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Sterling Willis YOUNG, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Sterling W. Young, in pro. per.
Thomas F. Eagleton, Atty. Gen., Moody Mansur, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Sterling Willis Young, a prisoner in the penitentiary, appeals from the denial by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis of his motion to vacate and set aside the four separate sentences (previously imposed by said court) by virtue of which he is presently incarcerated. (Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R.) We shall refer to the prisoner-appellant as defendant.
Three of the four charges which culminated in the sentences now under attack were that of forcible rape; the other, burglary in the first degree. On January 7, 1959, defendant appeared in the trial court in person and by his privately retained counsel, Messrs. William Hirsch and Irl Baris, and, by leave, withdrew his former plea of not guilty in each of the four cases, and entered pleas of guilty. He was thereafter put on the stand by his counsel, and examined at some length, during the course of which it was developed that he not only understood the nature of the charges against him, but he also identified the localities in the City of St. Louis where, and the approximate dates during the preceding spring and summer on which he had committed the several offenses (his victims being white women, whereas he is a Negro). In the instance involving burglary, he described how he broke into the premises with part of his clothes off, i. e., pants, shoes and shirt, his story being that he was 'either looking for a woman or going to steal something.' It was further developed that he understood the significance of withdrawing his pleas of not guilty, and entering pleas of guilty; that he pleaded guilty 'cause I did it.' He also stated that he had previously talked to the police about the matters to which he had testified, and that he recalled 'signing some statements for the police.' He went on to say that his counsel (both of whom were present) had talked to him on a number of occasions about the case; that they had been retained by his family to represent him; that they arranged for him to be, and he was examined at the hospital 'to see was I crazy'; that as a result of his stay at the hospital, and on the night before he left there, one of the doctors told him 'he didn't recommend Fulton.' Near the end of his oral examination, these questions were put to him by his own counsel, and he made these replies:
'
At the conclusion of the examination, the court assessed defendant's punishment and accordingly entered judgments sentencing him to life imprisonment in each of the three rape cases, and to a term of ten years' imprisonment on the charge of burglary in the first degree. The four charges under which these sentences were imposed were preferred by grand jury indictments, and the single assault defendant makes upon said sentences is thus stated in his motion to vacate and set aside: 'Movant submitts that each of above crimes were charged by Grand Jury indictments; and that the material evidence presented to the Grand Jury, were statements and admissions of his own guilt, of which statements and admissions were obtained by the police officers through means of dress duress as set forth in the following particularity to-wit:' [Here follow allegations to this effect: First, that in violation of 'Amendment Six (6), and Amendment Fourteen (14), Constitution of the United States,' he was 'beaten, threatened, and subjected to inhuman, uncivilized treatment for over a period of four days,' during which time he 'was subjected to continuous interrogation without being permitted to contact a lawyer, relatives, or friends'; and, secondly, that 'in violation of Amendment 5, Constitution of the United States * * * and Art. I, Sec. 19 and Sec. 21, Constitution (1945) of Missouri [V.A.M.S.],' he was taken to a hospital ostensibly 'for minor psychiatric examinations,' but instead was 'injected intravenously with 2 cc of Sodium Amytal, alias 'Truth Serum,' and while under the influence of this drug was questioned by police officers about other crimes unrelated to the crimes for which movant was charged.']
We do not pause to further notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jefferson v. State
...both cited and quoted with approval in Young v. State of Missouri, Mo.Sup., 438 S.W.2d 280 (Decided on March 10, 1969); State v. Young, Mo.Sup., 351 S.W.2d 732, 734. That defendant charged with first degree murder, knew the alternative penalties of death or life imprisonment; knew that a ju......
-
State v. Turner
...which has original and exclusive jurisdiction of the trial and disposition of felony cases. Sections 541.020 and 545.010; State v. Young, Mo., 351 S.W.2d 732; State v. Hester, Mo., 331 S.W.2d 535, 537; State v. Crouch and Jenkins, Mo., 353 S.W.2d A preliminary examination is not a trial of ......
-
Young v. State
...motions pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 27.26, each applicable to the four judgments, one of which was appealed to this court, State v. Young, Mo., 351 S.W.2d 732, and in which his only contention was that the 'material evidence' presented to the grand jury consisted of statements and admiss......