State v. Passley
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 773
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bench trial conviction of Steven Fitzgerald Passley as a prior and persistent offender for class C stealing under Mo. Rev. Stat. §570.030.3(3)(c) following amendment and charging under §570.030.8; trial court in Stoddard County after venue change; defense challenged enhancement, information, and sufficiency; court affirmed conviction and ten-year sentence.
- Victim’s phone case stolen at Wal-Mart Kennett; two post-theft transactions at Casey’s Kennett and Wal-Mart Malden; bank notified next day; police and store security reviewed surveillance photo.
- Surveillance photo showed Passley taking the case and leaving with his wife; Passley identified by officer at station; wife testified regarding use of stolen card.
- Information charged felony stealing with a “credit device” and prior offenses; trial court found Passley guilty of felony stealing and sentenced him as prior/persistent offender to ten years.
- Discussion centers on (a) statutory interpretation of §570.030.3(3) and 2002 amendment, (b) sufficiency of the information alleging a credit device, and (c) sufficiency of evidence that the stolen property was a credit card; authorities hold enhancement valid and information sufficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §570.030.3(3)(c) supports enhancement after 2002. | Passley argues no enhancement under §570.030.3 following amendment. | Passley contends the 2002 amendment and §570.030.8 preclude enhancement. | Enhancement valid; plain meaning supports classification as felony. |
| Whether the information sufficiently charged felony stealing for a credit device. | State must prove all elements; information sufficient to charge felony stealing. | Information broad as “credit device”; not limited to “credit card.” | Information sufficient to apprise defendant; supports conviction for felony stealing. |
| Whether the bankcard qualifies as a credit card for §570.030.3(3). | Bankcard evidence shows it functions as a credit card; ample proof. | Some argue debit card vs. credit card distinction. | There is substantial evidence the card functioned as a credit card; enhancement applies. |
| Whether the evidence proves the stolen property was a credit card beyond a reasonable doubt. | Bank records and witness testimony established credit-card status. | Debate over card type; not explicitly listed as credit card in statute. | Sufficient evidence supports finding the stolen property was a credit card. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ruth, 830 S.W.2d 24 (Mo.App.1992) (value of property not an element of stealing; supports charging for enhanced punishment)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- State v. Johnson, 284 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. banc 2009) (Apprendi/Jones framework applied to enhancement facts)
- State v. Clark, 197 S.W.3d 598 (Mo. banc 2006) (enhancement facts treated as elements for greater offense)
- State v. Jaco, 156 S.W.3d 775 (Mo. banc 2005) (enhancement-related facts treated as elements)
- State v. Glass, 136 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. banc 2004) (Apprendi line of cases applied to sentencing enhancements)
- State v. Rowe, 63 S.W.3d 647 (Mo. banc 2002) (statutory interpretation guidelines when meaning is unclear)
- State v. Reando, 313 S.W.3d 734 (Mo.App.2010) (sufficiency standard for indictments/ informations)