State v. Achter, 521 S.W.2d 761 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Achter, 521 S.W.2d 761 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) City of Kansas City v. Reeves
Mo. Ct. App. · 1977 · confidence medium
In Brown , at 763, the court drew the following distinction between Pearce and Colten and Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 , 93 S.Ct. 1977 , 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973): “Colten and the subsequent Chaffin case emphasize that vindictiveness by the court fixing the second sentence is what Pearce is intended to avoid.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Missouri
v.
Leslie Allen ACHTER
No. 9675.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Apr 3, 1975.
521 S.W.2d 761
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., K. Preston Dean, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent., James Haw, Reginald E. Young, Charleston, for appellant.
Billings, Flanigan, Hogan.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER. CURIAM.

Leslie Allen Achter was convicted by a Mississippi County jury of burglary and stealing. The court found he was subject to prosecution under the Second Offender Act [six prior felony convictions[1] ] and sentenced him to consecutive five-year sentences.

We have carefully read the transcript and the authorities cited by the parties in their briefs. The evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. We find no abuse of discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a continuance. Defendant was properly tried as a habitual criminal. We find no error in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. There was no error in refusing instructions tendered by the defendant since the instructions given fully and fairly covered the same subject matter. Although not properly preserved for our review we have considered and find no merit in the defendant’s contentions regarding a mental examination and the validity of a search warrant.

No error of law appears and an opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16, V.A. M.R.

Affirmed.

An concur.

1

Also see State v. Achter, 512 S.W.2d 894 (Mo.App.1974) and State v. Achter, 514 S.W.2d 825 (Mo.App.1974).