Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

71 Mo. 551

State v. Kring

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided April 15, 1880

Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1880-04-15

<p>1. Criminal Law: plea of guilty under agreement as to sentence. If a defendant in a criminal case enters a plea of guilty in consequence of an agreement with the prosecuting officer, apparently sanctioned by the judge, as to the sentence, a more severe sentence should not be awarded. He should rather be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty and file a plea of not guilty, if he desires.</p> <p>2. Bill of Exceptions after Judgment. A defendant who has received sentence upon a plea of guilty is entitled to have a bill of exceptions allowed showing the action of the court upon a motion to set aside the judgment.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Ee VERSED · Decided 1880-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1981

8 state decisions

3018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Sherwood, C. J.

¶1I. The defendant, charged with murder in the first degree, entered, with the consent of the circuit attorney, a plea of guilty of murder in the second degree, and was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of twenty-five years. Upon being sentenced he filed his motion to set aside the judgment and sentence and permit the withdrawal of the plea of guilty, and the original plea of not guilty to be entered, this motion was based upon the grounds of having entered such plea in consequence of an agreement entered into with the actiug circuit attorney, apparently sanctioned by the judge of the criminal court, that the sentence should not exceed ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The affidavits supporting the motion are uncoutradicted. The essential features of this case are precisely similar to those of State v. Stephens, ante, p. 535, and we adhere to-the conclusion therein announced.

¶2II. The defendant was entitled to his bill of exceptions, upon his motion to set aside the judgment being denied. Otherwise, a defendant, aggrieved solely by the erroneous judgment of a court and not by anything occurring during the progress of the trial would be remediless. Eor, in order to avail himself of any error committed in rendering judgment, he would have to, as in this instance, file his motion to set aside the judgment, and on such motion heiug denied, he would have to except to such denial, and preserve his exception by bill for that purpose. The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

All concur.
/71/mo/551 · .json · Public domain