TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Johnson

STATE of Missouri v. Charles JOHNSON

State v. Johnson, 382 S.W.2d 674 (Mo. 1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 12, 1964
Docket
No. 49358
Judges
Barrett, Pritchard, Stockard
Citations
382 S.W.2d 6741964 Mo. LEXIS 661

Opinion of the Court — Pritchard

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PRITCHARD, Commissioner.

Defendant was convicted by a jury on November 15, 1961, of the crime of rape and his punishment was assessed at 15 years’ imprisonment. The trial court then granted defendant 30 days within which to file his motion for new trial. The motion was filed on December 15, 1961. On February 2, 1962, defendant was before the court in person and by counsel at which time the sentence assessed by the jury was by the court reduced to 8 years. Defendant’s motion for new trial was argued and submitted to the court, and on the same day, February 2, 1962, was overruled, and defendant was sentenced to eight years in the Department of Corrections with allowance of the time spent by him in jail.

On February 14, 1962, defendant filed his notice of appeal in the trial court and copies were mailed to this court and to the Attorney General. The state has moved that defendant’s appeal be dismissed because the notice of appeal was not timely filed in accordance with Supreme Court Rules 28.03 and 82.04, V.A.M.R. We must sustain the motion to dismiss appeal. The filing of the notice of appeal within ten days after the final judgment or order appealed from is necessary to vest this court with appellate jurisdiction. The notice of appeal in this case was filed twelve days after the judgment became final upon its entry on February 2, 1962, after the overruling of defendant’s motion for new trial. No special order for appeal was made herein under Supreme Court Rule 28.07, V.A.M.R. Defendant has failed to take the vital step of timely filing of his notice of appeal in order to perfect the same. State v. Lowe, Mo., 365 S.W.2d 613, 614 [3], and cases there cited.

The appeal is dismissed.

BARRETT and STOCKARD, CC., concur.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion by PRITCHARD, C., is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

All of the Judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1965: 21975: 119652026peak 1965 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Morse526 S.W.2d 432 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975)
  2. State v. Hayes394 S.W.2d 346 (Mo. 1965)
  3. State v. Domini391 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. 1965)

Most recent

  1. State v. Morse526 S.W.2d 432 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975)
  2. State v. Hayes394 S.W.2d 346 (Mo. 1965)
  3. State v. Domini391 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. 1965)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
State v. Lowe, 365 S.W.2d 613 (Mo. 1963) 7

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list