State v. Hill
1965 Mo. LEXIS 656, 396 S.W.2d 563 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An indictment's misidentification of the specific correctional facility of a prior conviction does not constitute a fatal variance if the second offender statute applies to both facilities. Furthermore, a court may correct a procedurally defective sentence by holding a post-verdict evidentiary hearing on a prior conviction without granting a new trial on the underlying offense.
Facts:
- On October 18, 1957, Sterling Hill, then 17 years old, pled guilty to a felony charge of burglary in Polk County, Missouri.
- The court sentenced Hill to two years but, due to his age, commuted the sentence to imprisonment in the Intermediate Reformatory at Algoa, Missouri.
- Hill was received at the Intermediate Reformatory on October 21, 1957, and was released on December 1, 1958.
- At a later date, Hill was charged with first-degree robbery.
- The State of Missouri amended the robbery information to include an allegation of the prior burglary conviction to seek a sentence enhancement under the Second Offense Act.
- This amended information alleged that Hill's prior imprisonment had been in the 'Missouri State Penitentiary,' not the Intermediate Reformatory.
Procedural Posture:
- Sterling Junior Hill was tried and found guilty of first-degree robbery by a jury in a Missouri trial court.
- The trial court, finding that Hill had a prior felony conviction, sentenced him to 25 years in prison under the state's Second Offense Act.
- Hill appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
- On the first appeal, the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the robbery conviction but found the evidence of the prior conviction was insufficient to support the enhanced sentence.
- The court declared the sentence void and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the prior conviction.
- Following the remand, the trial court held a hearing, found the prior conviction was proven, and re-sentenced Hill to 25 years' imprisonment.
- Hill (appellant) appealed the judgment from the re-sentencing to the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a variance between an information alleging prior imprisonment in a state penitentiary and proof of imprisonment in a state reformatory invalidate an enhanced sentence under a second offense statute, and is a post-verdict hearing a permissible procedure to correct the state's initial failure to prove the prior conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Higgins, Commissioner
No, such a variance does not invalidate the sentence, and a post-verdict hearing is a proper remedy. The court held that the contention of a fatal variance is without merit because Missouri's second offense statute applies equally to persons imprisoned in the Intermediate Reformatory and those in the state penitentiary proper. Therefore, the specific name of the facility was not a material element, and the proof was sufficient. The court further reasoned that amending an information to add a prior conviction for sentencing enhancement does not charge a new or different offense, so a new preliminary hearing or arraignment is not required. Finally, citing precedent, the court affirmed that when a conviction is correct but the sentence is procedurally flawed, the proper remedy is for the court to reassume jurisdiction to correct the sentencing defect in a subsequent hearing, rather than granting a new trial on the valid underlying conviction.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that separates the guilt-innocence phase of a trial from the sentencing phase. It clarifies that clerical or non-material errors in an indictment related to sentence enhancements will not invalidate the proceedings. Most significantly, the case affirms the use of post-verdict, pre-sentencing hearings to cure evidentiary defects related to sentence enhancements, promoting judicial efficiency by preserving valid jury verdicts. This prevents defendants from receiving a whole new trial on the underlying charge due to a procedural error that only affects the sentence.
