TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Hopkins

STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Charles Leon HOPKINS

State v. Hopkins, 550 S.W.2d 947 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
May 3, 1977
Docket
No. 10276
Citations
550 S.W.2d 9471977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2557

Opinion of the Court

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court granted defendant’s motion for a new trial after he had been jury-tried and convicted of second degree murder. Thereafter, defendant waived a jury and consented to be retried by the court upon the transcript of the first trial. We assume from the verbiage contained in the transcript on appeal that on January 24, 1976, the court believed defendant guilty of manslaughter and proceeded, inter alia, as follows: “The Court: Mr. Hopkins [the defendant], I again inquire whether you have any lawful reason why this court should not impose a sentence at this time? Mr. Hopkins: None, Your Honor . . . . The Court: It’s the Order, Sentence and Judgment that . . . the defendant be committed to the Department of Corrections for a period of five years.” A motion for new trial was never filed. Defendant’s notice of appeal was filed February 7, 1976.

“We are again confronted with a record which requires that we dismiss an appeal because no final judgment has been entered. It has been repeatedly held that a trial court sitting as a jury and rendering a verdict . . may not impose sentence and judgment until the time for the filing of a motion for new trial has expired. . . . In this case it appears that no motion for new trial was ever filed. . . . Likewise, there is no formal verdict of guilty, although the court indicated such would be his finding. Thus, ... the defendant’s right to file a motion for new trial and reinstate his appeal would be in question if a verdict had, in fact, been rendered. Rule 27.20, V.A.M.R. We shall, therefore, . . . set aside the submission, dismiss the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court with directions to enter a verdict, receive and rule upon a motion for new trial, if any be filed, and make an entry of final judgment in accordance with Rule 27.20.” State v. Spear, 503 S.W.2d 52 (Mo.App.1973).

All concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1977: 11978: 11979: 119772026peak 1977 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Buford577 S.W.2d 809 (Mo. 1979)
  2. State v. Hopkins573 S.W.2d 744 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
  3. State v. Palmer556 S.W.2d 513 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Most recent

  1. In re Buford577 S.W.2d 809 (Mo. 1979)
  2. State v. Hopkins573 S.W.2d 744 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
  3. State v. Palmer556 S.W.2d 513 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

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. Spear, 503 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. Ct. App. 1973) 2

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