Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Missouri opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Persistent Offender Status “Once [a] defendant is found to be a persistent offender, the enhancement provision is automatic.” Johnson v. State, 938 S.W.2d 264, 266 (Mo. banc 1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wolfgreen1 sentence1997The statute by its own terms does not apply to all offenses — only those “defined outside the code.” State v. Wolf, 930 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Mo.App.1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Flenoidgreen1 sentence1993State v. Flenoid, 838 S.W.2d 462, 466 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Missouri Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2024But, as we recognized in Talley, the general minimum prison term provisions of section 558.019 cannot be applied to an armed criminal action sentence regardless “whether such application results in an increase or decrease of the minimum time served.” Talley, 210 S.W.3d at 215–16 (citing Johnson, 166 S.W.3d at 17 112–13). 2006Id. at 112-13 . | 2 | 2006–2024 |
Talley v. Missouri Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2024But, as we recognized in Talley, the general minimum prison term provisions of section 558.019 cannot be applied to an armed criminal action sentence regardless “whether such application results in an increase or decrease of the minimum time served.” Talley, 210 S.W.3d at 215–16 (citing Johnson, 166 S.W.3d at 17 112–13). 2024Id. at 215–16. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Shain
neutral
1 sentence1997In State v. Davis, supra, the court dealt with a rape statute very similar to the sodomy statute involved here. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1992Citing Thompson, 629 S.W.2d 361 , the movant argues that on January 26, 1990, the date he was sentenced, the guilty plea court failed to make the findings of fact required by § 558.021.1(3) and, therefore, “there was no valid adjudication of extended terms under Section 558.016 [and] minimum prison term provisions under Section 558.019_” Absent such valid adjudication, “all [the movant] should be legally serving at this time is two seven year sentences, running concurrent....” 6 The version of § 558.021.1(3) applicable in Thompson was enacted in 1977 and effective January 1, 1979. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.