State of Missouri, Respondent, v. John Shepherd, Appellant.
Decision date: Unknown
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. John Shepherd, Appellant. Case Number: 73223 Handdown Date: 12/01/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Monroe County, Hon. Carroll M. Blackwell Counsel for Appellant: Counsel for Respondent: Opinion Summary: Defendant was charged by information with one count of assault in the first degree, section 565.050, RSMo 1994. A jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree, section 565.060, RSMo 1994. The court found defendant was a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to twenty years in prison. However, the written sentence and judgment indicate that the sentence was for assault in the first degree. Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction. AFFIRMED; REMANDED TO CORRECT SENTENCE. Northern Division holds: (1) The judgment of the trial court on the conviction of defendant is affirmed and (2) the case is remanded for entry of a corrected written sentence for assault in the second degree consistent with the verdict and oral pronouncement of sentence. Citation: Opinion Author: Clifford H. Ahrens, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED; REMANDED TO CORRECT SENTENCE. J. Dowd and Mooney, JJ., concur. Opinion: Defendant was charged by information with one count of assault in the first degree, section 565.050, RSMo 1994.
(FN1) A jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of assault in the second degree, section 565.060. The court found defendant was a prior and persistent offender and sentenced him to twenty years in prison. However, the written sentence and judgment indicate that the sentence was for assault in the first degree. Defendant appeals from the judgment on his conviction. We affirm the judgment on the conviction and remand for correction of the written sentence. In his first point, defendant argues that the trial court erred in entering a written sentence that deviated from the trial court's oral pronouncement. State concedes error on this point. The jury returned a verdict for assault in the second degree. The trial court orally sentenced defendant to assault in the second degree. However, the written sentence and judgment indicate a sentence for assault in the first degree. The trial court's judgment must follow the verdict rendered in the case. State v. Box, 956 S.W.2d 460, 463 (Mo. App. 1997). Here, as in Box, it is clear that the error is a clerical mistake in that the applicable instruction was for assault in the second degree and the sentence was imposed for that offense. See id.; section 558.016.7(3). We remand for entry of a corrected twenty-year sentence for assault in the second degree as a prior and persistent offender, consistent with the verdict and oral pronouncement. Rule 29.12. Defendant further argues that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on assault in the third degree, section 565.070. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, and find no error. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion as to defendant's second point. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We remand only for entry of a corrected written sentence. Footnote: FN1.All statutory references are to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise indicated. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.