State v. Brown, 558 S.W.3d 105

Roy Brown was tried by jury for 15 charges arising from multiple downtown St. Louis robberies (Nov–Dec 2015): ten second-degree robberies, one attempted second-degree robbery, three first-degree robberies, and resisting arrest. The jury convicted him on 13 counts and acquitted on 2; sentencing in open court produced a total effective term of 60 years.
Two convictions were specifically challenged on appeal: (1) attempted second-degree robbery (Count V) related to victim Ashish Patel (Dec. 5, 2015), and (2) first-degree robbery (Count XIII) related to victims Shadia Wade and David Famdino (Dec. 23, 2015).
Facts supporting Count V: Brown or an accomplice knocked Patel unconscious; during that time Torres’s purse was taken and used at an ATM; Brown later admitted taking Torres’s purse and using her card. Patel’s property was not taken while he was unconscious.
Facts supporting Count XIII: Brown grabbed and wrestled Wade’s purse, dragged her, fled in a vehicle with the purse; when chased by Famdino Brown threatened he would shoot him; police recovered the purse in the car and identified Brown.
Brown argued insufficiency of the evidence on the two counts and that the written sentence and judgment contained clerical errors. The State conceded the clerical errors. The court affirmed convictions but remanded for nunc pro tunc correction of multiple clerical mistakes in the written judgment that mis‑denominated many counts and mis‑recorded verdicts/sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Brown)	Held
1) Sufficiency for attempted 2d‑degree robbery (Count V, Patel)	Evidence that Brown acted with others who knocked Patel out, and Brown later admitted taking Torres’s purse and using her card, supports accomplice attempt (substantial step + intent).	At most the blow to Patel was part of a plan to take Torres’s purse, not an attempted robbery of Patel.	Affirmed: jury could find the punch/knockout was a substantial step toward robbery and Brown acted with purpose to promote robbery; accomplice‑liability attempt proven.
2) Sufficiency for 1st‑degree robbery (Count XIII, Wade/Famdino)	Threat to shoot Famdino immediately after the taking was part of the single transaction "in the course of stealing" to retain the purse; supports first‑degree robbery.	Threat occurred after Brown already had the purse, so it was not "in the course" of the taking.	Affirmed: statute and precedent permit force/threats immediately after taking as part of the same transaction to prevent retention; evidence sufficed.
3) Clerical errors in written sentence/judgment	N/A (State concedes)	Trial court’s written judgment mislabels many counts, misstates verdicts and some sentences.	Remanded: convictions affirmed; remand for trial court to enter nunc pro tunc order correcting clerical mistakes to match jury instructions, verdict forms, and oral pronouncement.

State v. Hosier, 454 S.W.3d 883 (Mo. banc 2015) (standard for appellate sufficiency review)
State v. Voss, 488 S.W.3d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016) (sufficiency review focuses on statutory elements and evidence, not exact verdict‑director language)
State v. Thompson, 414 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. 1967) (attempted robbery may be supported where defendant inflicted injury and fled after victim cried for help)
State v. Rayburn, 457 S.W.3d 760 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014) (withdrawal by defendant prompted by victim or others does not preclude attempt if evidence shows intent and substantial step)
State v. Moore, 518 S.W.3d 877 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017) (defines clerical mistake and standard for nunc pro tunc correction)
State v. McClurg, 543 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018) (clerical errors that mis‑denominate counts or misstate verdicts may be corrected by nunc pro tunc when record supports trial court’s intentions)