Missouri Lawyers Media Missouri legal news and public notices
(1)Where an emotionally disturbed man argued that his consent to a search was not voluntary, the trial court did not err in overruling his motion to suppress evidence because the officers did not act in bad faith.
(2)Even though a trial court misstated the range of punishment in his child pornography case, the defendant was not entitled to plain error relief because the court explained at length during sentencing its reasons for imposing a 15-year sentence, so the sentence was supported by valid considerations.
Law misconstrued
Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part by Breckenridge, J.; “I concur in the principal opinion’s holding that the circuit court did not err in overruling Bryan Pierce’s motion to suppress evidence. I respectfully dissent, however, from the principal opinion’s holding that the circuit did not err in sentencing Mr. Pierce based on a mistaken belief as to the applicable enhanced range of punishment.
“The principal opinion acknowledges the circuit court misstated the range of punishment on the record at the sentencing hearing when it stated expressly, on the record, that the sentencing range was 10 to 30 years. Pursuant to section 558.011.1(1), 1 Mr. Pierce’s enhanced range of punishment as a prior and persistent offender was five to 30 years, or life in prison. Yet the principal opinion concludes Mr. Pierce failed to establish error resulted from the misstated range of punishment simply because the circuit court articulated other valid sentencing considerations during the sentencing hearing. Such a conclusion misconstrues Missouri case law on the subject and ignores the manifest injustice that inevitably results when a judge sentences a defendant with a mistaken belief as to the applicable range of punishment.”
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Pierce (MLW No. 71761/Case No. SC96095 – 17 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Fischer, C.J.; Wilson and Russell, JJ., and Lynch, Sp. J., concur; Breckenridge, J., concurs in part and dissents in part; Draper and Stith, JJ., concur in opinion of Breckenridge, J. Powell, J., not participating). Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Powell, J. (Natalie Hull Hoge, Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant) (Nathan J. Aquino, Jefferson City, for the state).
Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)
