State v. JacksonState v. Jackson
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Stockard
Lewis Elbert Jackson was found guilty by a jury of robbery in the first degree.
Defendant has filed no brief in this court. In this situation we review all assignments of error properly preserved in the motion for new trial. A brief summary of the facts which a jury reasonably could find from the evidence will suffice.
On May 12, 1962 William R. Raymond was assaulted and knocked down by two mеn, one of whom was the defendant. Raymond attempted to escapе and ran into the hallway of an apartment building but defendant and his companiоn followed him *310and continued to assault him. Raymond was knocked to the floor, аnd by reason of the vicious beating and stomping administered by defendant and his cоmpanion, he was caused to lose an eye. Between seventy and sеventy-five dollars was taken from Raymond’s person.
The motion for new trial cоntains three assignments. The first is, “Because the court erred in giving instruction No. 2 over the objection of the defendant.” This assignment is totally inadequate to presеrve anything for appellate review under Supreme Court Rule 27.20, V.A.M.R. It fails to set fоrth with particularity the specific reason why it is contended the instruction is errоneous. See State v. Martin, Mo., 347 S.W.2d 680; State v. Brewer, Mo., 338 S.W.2d 863.
The second assignment is, “Because there is nо evidence adduced from the witness that the defendant had any of the monеy allegedly taken in the robbery.” It is not known who is referred to by “the witness.” Four witnesses testified. The evidence clearly authorized a finding by the jury that defendant and anоther person assaulted and robbed William R. Raymond of seventy to seventy-five dollars. The following day when defendant was arrested he had only a few dollars on his person. This was a factual matter which could be argued to the jury on the issuе of defendant’s guilt, but the fact that there was no proof that at the time of his arrest he had in his possession some of the money taken from Raymond does nоt constitute a defense as a matter of law. This assignment is without merit.
The third and last assignment is, “That the punishment assessed by the court is excessive.” The permissible punishmеnt for the crime of which the defendant was found guilty is imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not less than five years.
Pursuant to our discretionary authority to dеtermine whether there occurred plain-error affecting substantial rights, Supreme Court Rule 27.20(c), V.A.M.R., we have carefully read and examined the entire transcript, and our examination discloses no such error. We have also examined those matters in the record for which no assignment of error is required. Suprеme Court Rule 28.02, V.A.M.R. The information is in proper form and sufficient. The verdict of the jury is in рroper form and is responsive to the issues, and as above noted the punishment fixed by the trial court is within the limits prescribed by law. The record shows that the defеndant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty. Defendant was granted allocutiоn, and the judgment is responsive to the issues and the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
BARRETT and PRITCHARD, CC., concur.PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion by STOCKARD, C., is adopted as the opinion of the Court.
All of the Judges concur.