State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Desmond Harris, Appellant., SC101233

Background

Harris and two others confronted Victim outside his home, robbed him at gunpoint, and Harris and an accomplice shot him multiple times; Victim survived after extensive surgery. 1
After Victim identified Harris, the State charged him with robbery, assault, armed criminal action, burglary, and stealing, but the court acquitted him of burglary and stealing at the close of the State's case. 2
At sentencing, the court considered the sentencing assessment report, heard the parties' recommendations, and then discussed Harris's prior felony probation and unrelated carjacking charges ending in an acquittal. 3
The court imposed consecutive sentences totaling fifty years: fifteen, ten, fifteen, and ten years on the four remaining counts. 4
Harris argued on appeal that the court punished him based on unproven conduct underlying the unrelated carjacking charges, violating section 557.036 and due process. 5
The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed, holding the sentencing remarks did not show plain error or manifest injustice and declining discretionary plain-error review. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did sentencing court plainly err by mentioning unrelated acquitted charges? 7	Harris was sentenced on unproven carjacking conduct.	The court only referenced arrests and charges in assessing rehabilitation.	No plain error; remarks were ambiguous and permissible. 8
Did the remarks create manifest injustice? 9	The higher sentence showed punishment for unproven conduct.	The sentence was justified by the robbery, assault, and probation history.	No; Harris showed no prejudice or manifest injustice. 10
Should the Court exercise discretionary plain-error review? 11	The Court should review because the sentencing colloquy was improper.	Review should be denied given the speculative record and future-case concerns.	No; discretionary review denied. 12

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jones, 725 S.W.3d 577 (Mo. 2025) (explains Rule 30.20 plain-error review framework 13)
State v. Russell, 598 S.W.3d 133 (Mo. 2020) (sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion 14)
State v. Mills, 687 S.W.3d 668 (Mo. 2024) (plain error must be evident, obvious, and clear 15)
Willbanks v. Department of Corrections, 522 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. 2017) (trial court has broad discretion over sentencing factors for prior offenders 16)
United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (acquitted conduct may be considered under federal sentencing guidelines if proved by a preponderance 17)
State v. Clark, 197 S.W.3d 598 (Mo. 2006) (jury sentencing may consider uncharged or acquitted conduct if proved by a preponderance 18)
State v. Fassero, 256 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. 2008) (penalty-phase jury may consider criminal conduct only if proved by a preponderance 19)
Martin v. State, 291 S.W.3d 846 (Mo. App. 2009) (sentencing prejudice requires a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence 20)
State v. Collins, 290 S.W.3d 736 (Mo. App. 2009) (judges are presumed able to disregard improper matters at sentencing 21)
State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. 1990) (judge-sentencing context presumes inadmissible evidence is not prejudicial 22)
Mason v. State, 368 S.W.3d 182 (Mo. App. 2012) (judge sentencing does not readily support prejudice from improper presentence material 23)
State v. Lindsey, 996 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. App. 1999) (sentencing requires a case-by-case evaluation of punishment 24)
State v. Burton, 198 S.W.2d 19 (Mo. 1946) (sentencing judge may consider the accused's record and reputation 25)