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.
6 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2007 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2007The language of Section 1.160(2) states that punishment will be assessed according to the amendatory law only if there is an alteration “of the law creating the offense prior to original sentencing.” In this case, there was not an “alteration of the law creating the offense” and the amendment did not occur “prior to original sentencing.” Pursuant to Section 1.160 a “defendant will be sentenced according to the law in effect at the time the offense was committed unless a lesser punishment is required by a change in the law creating the offense itself.” State v. Johnson, 150 S.W.3d 132, 138 (Mo. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pritchardgreen1 sentence2000This statute “requires that a defendant be tried for the offense as defined by the law that existed at the time of the offense, but the defendant is to be punished in accordance with the new law if the punishment prescribed has been reduced.” State v. Edwards, 983 S.W.2d 520, 521 (Mo. banc 1999); see also State v. Pritchard, 982 S.W.2d 273, 273 (Mo. banc 1999). 1 Section 1.160 only allows the punishment for an offense to be reduced in accord with statutes enacted after the commission of the offense. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2000This statute “requires that a defendant be tried for the offense as defined by the law that existed at the time of the offense, but the defendant is to be punished in accordance with the new law if the punishment prescribed has been reduced.” State v. Edwards, 983 S.W.2d 520, 521 (Mo. banc 1999); see also State v. Pritchard, 982 S.W.2d 273, 273 (Mo. banc 1999). 1 Section 1.160 only allows the punishment for an offense to be reduced in accord with statutes enacted after the commission of the offense. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gillespiegreen1 sentence1998See State v. Sumlin, 820 S.W.2d 487, 493 (Mo. banc 1991); State v. Gillespie, 944 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Mo.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sumlingreen1 sentence1998See State v. Sumlin, 820 S.W.2d 487, 493 (Mo. banc 1991); State v. Gillespie, 944 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Mo.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoopergreen1 sentence1997While Defendant was charged under the former version of the statute regarding sexual offenses, he was entitled to the benefits of the amended law and the reduced punishment pursuant to section 1.160, supra. See Paro, 952 S.W.2d at 341 ; Price, 940 S.W.2d at 537 ; Helmig, 924 S.W.2d at 567 ; see also State v. Hooper, 801 S.W.2d 717, 720-21 (Mo.App.1990). 4 The complained of instruction, albeit facially erroneous, gave the jury the authority to convict Defendant for the crime of sodomy if the jury believed that Defendant either (1) touched his son’s genitals, or (2) had anal intercourse with his | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ryan
green
1 sentence2001Accordingly, Appellant argues that he was and is entitled to reduced punishment pursuant to section 1.160, RSMo 1994, and that the case should now be remanded to the sentencing court to permit Appellant to withdraw his plea of guilty. 3 Disposition of this appeal is governed by State v. Ryan, 813 S.W.2d 898 (Mo.App.1991). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Helmig
green
2 sentences1997However, “[t]he exception within [section] 1.160 RSMo 1994 manifests the legislature’s intent to give the defendant the benefit of any reduced sentence made while his ease is pending, regardless of the offense’s reclassification under the amendments.” Helmig, 924 S.W.2d at 567 . 1997While Defendant was charged under the former version of the statute regarding sexual offenses, he was entitled to the benefits of the amended law and the reduced punishment pursuant to section 1.160, supra. See Paro, 952 S.W.2d at 341 ; Price, 940 S.W.2d at 537 ; Helmig, 924 S.W.2d at 567 ; see also State v. Hooper, 801 S.W.2d 717, 720-21 (Mo.App.1990). 4 The complained of instruction, albeit facially erroneous, gave the jury the authority to convict Defendant for the crime of sodomy if the jury believed that Defendant either (1) touched his son’s genitals, or (2) had anal intercourse with his | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Paro
green
1 sentence1997While Defendant was charged under the former version of the statute regarding sexual offenses, he was entitled to the benefits of the amended law and the reduced punishment pursuant to section 1.160, supra. See Paro, 952 S.W.2d at 341 ; Price, 940 S.W.2d at 537 ; Helmig, 924 S.W.2d at 567 ; see also State v. Hooper, 801 S.W.2d 717, 720-21 (Mo.App.1990). 4 The complained of instruction, albeit facially erroneous, gave the jury the authority to convict Defendant for the crime of sodomy if the jury believed that Defendant either (1) touched his son’s genitals, or (2) had anal intercourse with his | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Price
green
1 sentence1997While Defendant was charged under the former version of the statute regarding sexual offenses, he was entitled to the benefits of the amended law and the reduced punishment pursuant to section 1.160, supra. See Paro, 952 S.W.2d at 341 ; Price, 940 S.W.2d at 537 ; Helmig, 924 S.W.2d at 567 ; see also State v. Hooper, 801 S.W.2d 717, 720-21 (Mo.App.1990). 4 The complained of instruction, albeit facially erroneous, gave the jury the authority to convict Defendant for the crime of sodomy if the jury believed that Defendant either (1) touched his son’s genitals, or (2) had anal intercourse with his | 1 | 1997–1997 |
McCulley v. State
green
2 sentences1987Based on McCulley v. State, 486 S.W.2d 419 (Mo.1972), the majority concludes that the “sentence which consists of confinement for a period of time or a fine constitutes the penalty.” The majority then states that the “additional parole term of Section 195.221 does not constitute a penalty because it becomes effective only if the Board grants parole,” concluding that Section 1.160 “cannot save [Section 195.221] for use against Gallup because the legislature repealed it before he was granted parole.” Contrary to the majority, however, I believe that the extended term of parole required by Sectio 1987Based on McCulley v. State, 486 S.W.2d 419 (Mo.1972), the majority concludes that the “sentence which consists of confinement for a period of time or a fine constitutes the penalty.” The majority then states that the “additional parole term of Section 195.221 does not constitute a penalty because it becomes effective only if the Board grants parole,” concluding that Section 1.160 “cannot save [Section 195.221] for use against Gallup because the legislature repealed it before he was granted parole.” Contrary to the majority, however, I believe that the extended term of parole required by Sectio | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.