Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

(DOWNLOAD) "State Missouri v. Leonard Rogers" by Eastern District, Division Five Missouri Court of Appeals # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

State Missouri v. Leonard Rogers

📘 Read Now     📥 Download


eBook details

  • Title: State Missouri v. Leonard Rogers
  • Author : Eastern District, Division Five Missouri Court of Appeals
  • Release Date : January 26, 1984
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 60 KB

Description

Appellant Leonard Rogers was found guilty by a jury and was convicted of stealing, § 570.030 RSMo 1978, third offense, § 570.040 RSMo 1978. He was sentenced as a persistent offender, § 558.016 RSMo 1978, to ten years' imprisonment. We affirm The crime occurred on September 8, 1982, at about 5:15 p.m. on a parking lot in downtown St. Louis. It was rush hour and the cashier was directing traffic in the middle of the lot when he saw appellant, with a knife in his hand, take money from the unoccupied booth. A customer, upon seeing the flash of the knife as appellant reached inside the booth, gave chase. Appellant dropped the knife in an alley and the weapon was retrieved by the customer during the chase. Seeing police, the customer yelled, ""Stop that man, he's a thief."" A uniformed police officer apprehended appellant shortly thereafter. The officer seized $106 from appellant's hand; the cashier estimated that $104 to $107 was missing from the parking lot register. The customer arrived on the scene of the arrest and informed the officer of the crime and presented the knife. Appellant was then arrested and informed of his rights. Appellant indicated that he understood his rights and said, ""I took the money but it's only a till tapping, not a robbery."" He also admitted that, ""I found the knife in the park today."" Appellant was placed in a lock-up van and driven back to the parking lot where the cashier identified him. At a pretrial hearing, appellant moved to proceed pro se. The trial court Judge thoroughly explained the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. The appellant was advised the following: (1) that self-representation is unwise; (2) that appellant would receive no special indulgence by the court and that he must follow the rules of criminal procedure and evidence; and, (3) that the prosecution will be represented by an experienced, professional counsel. The court then made an inquiry into appellant's intellectual capacity to make an intelligent decision. Appellant was asked about the nature and extent of his formal education and his familiarity with legal procedures. Although he had the equivalent of a high school education, appellant stated that he had performed twelve years of legal research while he was serving other prison terms. Furthermore, all of appellant's pro se motions appeared to be in good order. The trial court's inquiry into appellant's mental health revealed no problems. Appellant stated that he was aware that he had a right to counsel at any time and at no cost to him. The court then explained the procedure of the trial and asked if appellant was making his choice with his eyes open. Appellant responded affirmatively. Appellant was then informed that if he misbehaved, his right of self-representation would be vacated. Lastly, appellant was made aware that in spite of his efforts, he could not later claim inadequacy of representation.


PDF Books Download "State Missouri v. Leonard Rogers" Online ePub Kindle