Plant v. State

Robert Harry PLANT, Movant-Appellant v. STATE of Missouri

Plant v. State, 608 S.W.2d 91 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980)

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: September 2, 1980
Docket: No. 42124
Judges: Crist, Dowd, Reinhard
Citations: 608 S.W.2d 911980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3487

Cited by 8 2 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court — Crist

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

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial of his second Rule 27.26 motion. We affirm.

Movant was convicted by a St. Louis County jury of attempted burglary. At the time of sentencing, movant was already serving time on sentences of ten years and five years imposed consecutively in St. Charles.

Movant alleges that there is a material difference between the sentence orally pronounced by the trial court and the sentence entered upon the record. Movant cites U. S. v. Raftis, 427 F.2d 1145, 1146 (8th Cir. 1970) for the proposition that the oral pronouncement of the court must govern over the sentence actually entered, if there is a discrepancy between the two. This is a correct statement of the law. However, there was no material discrepancy in this case.

On June 1, 1970, movant was convicted by a St. Charles County jury of second degree burglary and stealing. Consecutive sentences of ten years and five years respectively, were imposed.

On November 9, 1973, sentence was pronounced in this case as follows:

“... [I]t is the séntence of this Court that you serve five (5) years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Said sentence to run consecutive to sentence imposed in St. Charles, Missouri.” (Emphasis added.)

Immediately thereafter, movant asked the court for clarification.

“Mr. Plant: Your Honor, could you be a little more specific, please. Is that five (5) years to run consecutive with the sen *92 tence I am now serving, the ten (10) years in St. Charles?

The Court: Yes, ten (10), five (5) consecutive.

Mr. Plant: Thank you, your Honor.” Movant interprets this dialogue as evidence of the court’s intent to make the five year sentence consecutive to the ten year sentence only and not the fifteen years imposed totally in St. Charles (ten years plus five years consecutively). Although the trial court’s response to movant’s question, taken alone, might justify this interpretation, movant’s question contained a misstatement of the full sentence actually imposed in St. Charles.

The formal pronouncement preceding the question clearly and unambiguously reveals the court’s intent that movant serve three consecutive sentences and not one sentence of ten years followed by two five year sentences running concurrently. Crump v. State, 462 S.W.2d 809, 810 (Mo.banc 1971). The sentence as entered reflects this intent (“Said sentence to run consecutive to sentence imposed in St. Charles, Missouri, ...”).

Judgment affirmed.

DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(finding no discrepancy where written sentence reflected formal oral pronouncement of sentence, despite possibly ambiguous comments by the judge elsewhere in the record)

Johnson v. State, 938 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. 1997)
(court looked to the formal pronouncement of sentence to determine whether a discrepancy existed)

McCaine v. State, 891 S.W.2d 419 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Johnson v. State938 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. 1997)
McCaine v. State891 S.W.2d 419 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)
State v. Bulloch838 S.W.2d 510 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)
State v. Cooper712 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)
State v. Williams797 S.W.2d 734 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)
State v. Patterson959 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)

Most recent

State v. Patterson959 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)
Johnson v. State938 S.W.2d 264 (Mo. 1997)
McCaine v. State891 S.W.2d 419 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995)
State v. Bulloch838 S.W.2d 510 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992)
State v. Williams797 S.W.2d 734 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)
State v. Cooper712 S.W.2d 27 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986)

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 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	United States v. Raftis, 427 F.2d 1145 (8th Cir. 1970)	31
	Crump v. State, 462 S.W.2d 809 (Mo. 1971)	3

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list