Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

787 S.W.2d 794

State v. Murphy

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 13, 1990

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1990-03-13

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[Defendant was put on probation after a conviction for the crime of robbery in the first degree. He was later rearrested for that same crime. The reason for his rearrest for that crime was a possible probation violation. The term “possible probation violation” is simply an explanation for his rearrest for the underlying crime. A probation revocation hearing is civil in nature in that a defendant is not entitled to the full panoply of rights that he has in a criminal trial. In this case the defendant had previously pleaded guilty and been sentenced. The purpose of the probation revocation hearing was to decide whether that sentence should be executed. If the hearing had occurred and the sentence been ordered executed, it would have been for the conviction of the crime of robbery in the first degree. The reason for ordering the execution of the sentence would have been based on a finding that defendant had violated the terms of his probation.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Sapp, State v. Fernow

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-03-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2010

5 state decisions

20199020002010decided

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 →

CRANDALL, Judge,

¶1concurring.

¶2I concur in the opinion of Karohl, J. and write only to express my disagreement with the dissenting opinion of Pudlowski, P.J.

¶3There is substantial evidence in the record to conclude that defendant was put on probation after a conviction for the crime of robbery in the first degree. He was later rearrested for that same crime. The reason for his rearrest for that crime was a possible probation violation. The term “possible probation violation” is simply an explanation for his rearrest for the underlying crime.

¶4A probation revocation hearing is civil in nature in that a defendant is not entitled to the full panoply of rights that he has in a criminal trial. In this case the defendant had previously pleaded guilty and been sentenced. The purpose of the probation revocation hearing was to decide whether that sentence should be executed. If the hearing had occurred and the sentence been ordered executed, it would have been for the conviction of the crime of robbery in the first degree. The reason for ordering the execution of the sentence would have been based on a finding that defendant had violated the terms of his probation.

¶5I agree with the majority that the amended information in this case was legally insufficient to charge defendant with a crime. This despite the fact that the evidence made a submissible case of the crime of escape from confinement after arrest for any crime. Section 575.210.1, RSMo (1986). The State simply failed to charge a crime supported by the evidence.

/787/sw2d/794 · .json · Public domain