Vickers v. State, 21527

Decision Date24 November 1997
Docket NumberNo. 21527,21527
Citation956 S.W.2d 405
PartiesBrandon VICKERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Stephen P. Carlton, Springfield, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

MONTGOMERY, Chief Judge.

Brandon Vickers (Movant) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion challenging his sentence as a prior and persistent offender. We vacate Movant's sentence and remand to the circuit court with directions for resentencing.

On January 22, 1996, by amended information, Movant was charged with the class C felony of stealing. The amended information further alleged that Movant was a prior and persistent offender under §§ 558.016 and 557.036.4 1 in that he had been found guilty of forgery and property damage. 2

During his jury trial, Movant decided to withdraw his plea of not guilty to the stealing charge and enter a plea of guilty. The trial court had earlier made a finding that Movant was a prior and persistent offender in that he had been adjudged guilty of forgery on July 23, 1994, and of property damage on November 28, 1994. The trial court accepted Movant's guilty plea. After a presentence investigation, Movant was sentenced as a persistent offender to a prison term of 20 years.

Subsequently, Movant filed a Rule 24.035 motion which, after an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied. This appeal followed.

Here, the State concedes Movant's point that he was improperly sentenced as a persistent offender. The State admits that the trial court erroneously found him to be a persistent offender based on prior convictions of forgery and property damage when, in fact, Movant had no forgery conviction. According to the State, the alleged forgery conviction was actually a felony stealing conviction.

Section 558.021.1(1) RSMo 1986 authorizes an extended sentence if, but only if, '[t]he indictment or information, original or amended, or the information in lieu of indictment pleads all essential facts warranting a finding that the defendant is a prior offender, persistent offender, or dangerous offender....' In addition, § 558.016.1 imposes as a precondition a requirement the court find the defendant is a persistent offender. This statute contemplates that the convictions be found according to indictment or information and that the proof shall conform with the charge.

State v. Martin, 882 S.W.2d 768, 771 (Mo.App.1994).

In Martin, as to defendant's persistent offender status, the State alleged prior convictions for four counts of tampering but proved at trial convictions for stealing and carrying a concealed weapon. Because the charged and proven offenses were unconnected, the appellate court remanded the case "for the purpose of permitting the State to prove the allegations in the information or to amend the information and submit proof supporting repeat offender sentencing." Id. at 772.

Here, as in Martin, at least one of the charged prior convictions was unproven. Clearly, the State failed to prove Movant's persistent offender status founded upon a property damage conviction and a non-existent forgery conviction. Based on Martin, we agree that the trial court erroneously sentenced Movant as a persistent offender and that the motion court likewise erred in denying Movant's Rule 24.035 motion.

The proper relief to grant Movant is well established. "The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Sprofera v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 2020
    ...error, not as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel subject to Strickland ’s prejudice standards. Vickers v. State , 956 S.W.2d 405, 406-07 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997) ; Strickner v. State , 943 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). Thus, none of the cases Sprofera cites are contrary to our......
  • State v. Kidd
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 26, 2002
    ...been cited and followed sometimes with a discussion of prejudice and sometimes despite a finding of no prejudice. See Vickers v. State, 956 S.W.2d 405, 406-07 (Mo.App.1997) (remanding to correct errors without discussing prejudice); Strickner v. State, 943 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Mo.App.1997) (fin......
  • Sayre v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 20, 2018
    ...address it. See note 2, above.4 See , e.g. , Matthews v. State , 123 S.W.3d 307, 310–11 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) ; Vickers v. State , 956 S.W.2d 405, 407 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997) ; Dudley v. State , 903 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995) ; Carrothers v. State , 851 S.W.2d 1, 1 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992......
  • State v. Sharp
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 6, 2001
    ...and submit proof supporting repeat offender sentencing." State v. Martin, 882 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994); Vickers v. State, 956 S.W.2d 405, 407 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997). Second, the resentencing court did not err in finding that defendant committed the crimes described in Exhibits A 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