State ex rel. Rocky LaChance, Petitioner, v. Michael Bowersox, Superintendent, and Jeremiah Nixon, Attorney General, Respondents.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion

Case Style: State ex rel. Rocky LaChance, Petitioner, v. Michael Bowersox, Superintendent, and Jeremiah Nixon, Attorney General, Respondents. Case Number: SC85091 Handdown Date: 09/30/2003 Appeal From: Original Proceeding in Mandamus Counsel for Appellant: Fernando Bermudez Counsel for Respondent: Stephen D. Hawke Opinion Summary: After the St. Louis city circuit court imposed seven-year sentences against Rocky LaChance, the St. Louis County circuit court also sentenced LaChance. The department of corrections interpreted the county's sentence to mean LaChance should serve the county sentence consecutively to the city sentences. LaChance seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court. PERMANENT WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHALL ISSUE. Court en banc holds: When pronouncing sentence, the county circuit court failed to state whether some of the sentences it was imposing were to run consecutively to or concurrently with the city's previous sentences. Because the county court failed to do so at the time it pronounced the sentences, those sentences shall run concurrently pursuant to Rule 29.09. To the extent a material difference between the oral pronouncement and written judgment exists, the oral pronouncement controls. The superintendent is directed to correct the department's records to reflect that some of the county's sentences are to be served concurrently. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: PERMANENT WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHALL ISSUE. All concur.

Opinion: Michael Bowersox is directed to correct the records of the department of corrections to reflect that the sentence imposed by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in case no. 96CR-001022(1) is to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively, with the seven-year sentences imposed by the Circuit Court of St. Louis City in case no. 951-2736. A permanent writ of mandamus shall issue accordingly. When pronouncing sentence in case no. 96CR001022(1), the court failed to state whether the sentences as to those offenses shall run consecutively to or concurrently with sentences imposed in case no. 951-2736, offenses for which LaChance had been previously sentenced. As the court failed to do so at the time of pronouncing the sentences, the respective sentences shall run concurrently. Rule 29.09. To the extent the written judgment imposed the sentences consecutively, it was a material difference from the sentence orally pronounced. If a material difference exists, the oral pronouncement controls. State v. Franklin , 975 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. App. 1998). The oral pronouncement of the circuit court of St. Louis County was of a maximum sentence of 13 years. All concur. The Court expresses its appreciation to Attorney Fernando Bermudez, who represented petitioner pro bono by appointment of the Court. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.