566.062. Statutory sodomy and attempt to commit, first degree, penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of statutory sodomy in the first degree if he or she has deviate sexual intercourse with another person who is less than fourteen years of age.
2. The offense of statutory sodomy in the first degree or an attempt to commit statutory sodomy in the first degree is a felony for which the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than five years, unless:
(1) The offense is an aggravated sexual offense or the victim is less than twelve years of age, in which case the authorized term of imprisonment is life imprisonment or a term of years not less than ten years; or
(2) The person is a persistent or predatory sexual offender as defined in section 566.125 and subjected to an extended term of imprisonment under said section.
Notes of Decisions
Mark D. Vogl v. State of Missouri (Mo. 2014).
· cites it 8× “Section 566.062, RSMo Supp. 2013. The circuit court sentenced Vogl to two concurrent terms of 15 years' imprisonment.”
James Day v. State of Missouri (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 12× “-Section 566.062, RSMo Cum.Supp. (2006) .states: "A person commits the crime of statutory sodomy in the first degree if he has deviate sexual intercourse with another person who is less titan fourteen years old.”
State of Missouri v. Claude Chambers (Mo. 2016).
· cites it 8× “Section 566.062, RSMo Supp. 2013. “Deviate sexual intercourse” is defined as “any act involving the genitals of one person and the hand, mouth, tongue, or anus of another person or a sexual act involving the penetration, however slight, of the male or female sex organ or the…”
Edward L. Hoeber v. State of Missouri (Mo. 2016).
· cites it 4× “15 motion for post- conviction relief alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to verdict directors that violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict and for failing to hire an expert to testify at the sentencing hearing.”
State v. Brown (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 12× “Brown”) appeals his conviction following jury trial for statutory sodomy in the first degree, section 566.062, RSMo 2000, and sentence of forty-five years imprisonment.”
State v. Davies (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 10× “Section 566.062 RSMo 2006. “Deviate sexual intercourse” includes “any act involving the genitals of one person and the hand, mouth, tongue, or anus of another person.”
State of Missouri v. Thomas A. Ess (Mo. 2015).
· cites it 6× “Ess raises three points on appeal, alleging juror misconduct, instructional error, and insufficient evidence to support two of his convictions.”
State v. Greenlee (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “” Unlike first-degree statutory sodomy, which pursuant to Section 566.062 required only that Greenlee engage in “deviate sexual intercourse with another person who is less than fourteen years old,” lack of consent is a required element of the crime of sexual misconduct.”
State v. Barnard (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 13× “” On January 28, 1997, Appellant was charged by amended information with statutory sodomy, Section 566.062, RSMo (1994) in the Circuit Court of Bates County.”
State v. Sanders (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “David Sanders was charged with two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, Section 566.062, RSMo, [1] and one count of promoting child pornography in the first degree, Section 573.”
Soto v. State (Mo. 2007).
· cites it 5× “Milton Soto pleaded guilty to first-degree statutory sodomy in violation of section 566.062, RSMo 2000. He subsequently filed a post-conviction motion pursuant to Rule 24.”
State v. Bonich (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 8× “011, and one count of the unclassified felony of statutory sodomy in the first degree, a violation of section 566.062. 1 Appellant was sentenced by the trial court to ten years imprisonment on each of the two counts of attempted statutory sodomy and seventeen years imprisonment…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.062(1) — 1 case
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 566.062(2) — 1 case
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.