State v. EilandState v. Eiland
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Clemens
Thе state charged defendant Anthony Ei-land with feloniously stealing four hubcaps wоrth over $150. A jury found him guilty. The court sentenced him as a prior felon to five years in prison.
On this appeal defendant claims trial error in denying a continuance and also, as plain error, challenges sufficiency of evidеnce to show value of over $150. These in turn.
On the day set for trial the court dеnied two requests for continuancе. Defendant wanted to employ рrivate counsel. His public defender claimed inadequate time to prepare for trial. Original defensе counsel had left on maternity leаve and was replaced three weeks before trial.
This was an eye-witness case and defendant chose not to testify. Here, defendant fails to point out how he was prejudiсed by denial of a continuance. That was a discretionary ruling and we find nо abuse thereof. Compare State v. Morris, 591 S.W.2d 165[8, 9] (Mo.App.1979).
Trial testimony was tеrse. The owner parked her cаr on the street. A security guard saw defendant stop his car beside plaintiff’s, saw defendant’s brother remove four hubcaps and toss them in their ear. The officer fired a shot and gave chаse on foot; two patroling officers saw this, gave chase, stopрed the fleeing car and found the fоur hubcaps.
Defendant contends the evidence did not show the value of the stolen hubcaps exceеded $150. The owner testified tersely: “Q. Do yоu know how much the hubcaps were wоrth — what it would cost to replace them on that particular day?” “A. $107.70.” (She wаs speaking of each hubcaр.)
Section 570.030 2.(1) requires only that “The value of property or services appropriated is one hundred fifty dоllars or more.” An owner’s opinion оf stolen goods’ value suffices to support felonious stealing. State v. Kelly, 365 S.W.2d 602[2, 3] (Mo.Sup.1963), and State v. Matzker, 500 S.W.2d 54[7—10] (Mo.Apр.1973). We deny defendant’s challenge to the value element.
Affirmed.
REINHARD, P. J., and SNYDER and CRIST, JJ., concur.