Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 546
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 546.550 (2026)

Presence of prisoner at rendition of judgment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  546.550.  Presence of prisoner at rendition of judgment. — For the purpose of judgment, if the conviction be for an offense punishable by imprisonment, or imprisonment be assessed as punishment by the jury, the defendant must be personally present; if for a fine only, he must be personally present, or some responsible person must undertake for him to pay the judgment and costs; judgment may then be rendered in his absence.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 4100)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 3711; 1919 § 4055; 1909 § 5261

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1951–2023 · leading case: State v. Dailey, 53 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Dailey, 53 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “; see also § 546.550, RSMo 2000. At sentencing, Dailey did not know whether his sentence would run concurrent or consecutive to any sentence imposed by the court for the revocation of his parole.”
State v. Washington, 249 S.W.3d 255 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Washington now appeals this new sentence, arguing that it was in violation of section 546.550 and Rule 29.07(b)(2) because he was not personally present for the hearing.”
State v. Finster, 985 S.W.2d 881 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “I, § 10, and to be sentenced in person, see §§ 546.550 and 546.570 and Rule 29.07(b)(2).”
State of Missouri v. Jason L. Berry, 506 S.W.3d 357 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “6 Berry argues that the imposition of the new sentence was in violation of his constitutional due process rights, sections 546.550 7 and 546.560, 8 and Rule 29.”
De Andrea Gray v. State of Missouri, 498 S.W.3d 522 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). “banc 2010) (citing sections 546.550 to 546.570; Rule 29.07(b))”
State v. Hayzlett, 265 S.W.2d 321 (Mo. 1954). “§§ 546.550, 546.560, 546.570. Since no error is found or demonstrated upon the transcript the judgment is affirmed.”
State v. Davis, 251 S.W.2d 610 (Mo. 1952). “Sections 546.550, 546.560, 546.570 RSMo 1949, V.”
State v. Garrett, 282 S.W.2d 441 (Mo. 1955). “We have also examined the entries showing allocution, judgment and sentence, and while we cannot agree' with the state that all of "these “are in proper form and fully comply with the statutes (Sections 546.550 and 546.560,-RSMo 1949, V.”
State v. Swindell, 271 S.W.2d 533 (Mo. 1954). “Supreme Court Rule 2802; Sections 546.550, 546.-560, 546.570 RSMo 1949, V.”
State v. Porter, 755 S.W.2d 3 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988). “Porter relies on the following language from § 546.550: For the purpose of judgment, if the conviction be for an offense punishable by imprisonment, or imprisonment be assessed as punishment by the jury, the defendant must be personally present [[Image here]] and from § 546.”
State v. Foster, 251 S.W.2d 675 (Mo. 1952). “Sections 546.550, 546.560 and 546.570. No reversible error appears from the record presented for review.”
State v. Estes, 281 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. 1955). “, there was allocution and the sentence, and judgment are responsive to the ’ verdict, Sections 546.550, -546.560, *9 546.570 RSMo 1949, V.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.