Shaw v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1079
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Shaw appeals from an order denying his amended Rule 24.035 motion to correct the written judgment for kidnapping and stealing.
- The written judgment stated Shaw's sentences were to run consecutively.
- The oral pronouncement at sentencing stated concurrent sentences.
- The sentencing occurred in April 2007 after Shaw pleaded guilty to kidnapping (Count I) and stealing (Count VII) as part of a plea agreement.
- The State dismissed five other counts and SAR was prepared; the State anticipated 15 years on Count I and 4 years on Count VII stay-concurrent per the plea terms.
- The motion court denied correction; the appeal seeks to align the written judgment with the oral sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the written judgment must conform to the oral pronouncement. | Shaw: written judgment should reflect concurrent sentences. | State: no correction dictated by transcript; judge intended consecutive. | Yes; written judgment must reflect concurrent sentences; remand for correction. |
| Whether the transcript’s accuracy can justify not correcting the judgment. | Transcript shows concurrent; error in judgment’s wording. | Rule 30.04(g) challenge not pursued; transcript controls. | Transcript issue cannot override oral pronouncement; judgment corrected on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hastings v. State, 308 S.W.3d 792 (Mo.App.2010) (written sentence must reflect oral pronouncement unless no material difference)
- Patterson v. State, 959 S.W.2d 940 (Mo.App.1998) (oral sentence controls when materially different from written judgment; remand for correction)
- Zinna v. Steele, 301 S.W.3d 510 (Mo.banc 2010) (oral sentence controls when different from written; need correction)
- Brookshire, 353 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.1962) (transcript accuracy issues; burden on proper transcript)
- White v. St. Louis Teachers Union, 217 S.W.3d 382 (Mo.App.2007) (court relies on certified transcript when determining sentence)
- Soto v. State, 226 S.W.3d 164 (Mo.banc 2007) (clear standard for review of post-conviction sentencing issues)
- Mort v. State, 321 S.W.3d 471 (Mo.App.2010) (discretion in sentencing; concurrent vs consecutive)