From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. LaChance v. Bowersox

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc
Sep 30, 2003
119 S.W.3d 95 (Mo. 2003)

Opinion

No. SC 85091.

September 30, 2003

Appeal From: Original Proceeding in Mandamus.

Fernando Bermudez, for Appellant.

Stephen D. Hawke, for Respondent.


Michael Bowersox is directed to correct the records of the department of corrections to reflect that the sentence imposed by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in case no. 96CR-001022(1) is to be served concurrently, rather than consecutively, with the seven-year sentences imposed by the Circuit Court of St. Louis City in case no. 951-2736. A permanent writ of mandamus shall issue accordingly.

When pronouncing sentence in case no. 96CR001022(1), the court failed to state whether the sentences as to those offenses shall run consecutively to or concurrently with sentences imposed in case no. 951-2736, offenses for which LaChance had been previously sentenced. As the court failed to do so at the time of pronouncing the sentences, the respective sentences shall run concurrently. Rule 29.09.

To the extent the written judgment imposed the sentences consecutively, it was a material difference from the sentence orally pronounced. If a material difference exists, the oral pronouncement controls. State v. Franklin, 975 S.W.2d 493 (Mo.App. 1998). The oral pronouncement of the circuit court of St. Louis County was of a maximum sentence of 13 years.

PERMANENT WRIT OF MANDAMUS SHALL ISSUE.

All concur.

The Court expresses its appreciation to Attorney Fernando Bermudez, who represented petitioner pro bono by appointment of the Court.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. LaChance v. Bowersox

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc
Sep 30, 2003
119 S.W.3d 95 (Mo. 2003)
Case details for

State ex Rel. LaChance v. Bowersox

Case Details

Full title:State ex rel. Rocky LaChance, Petitioner, v. Michael Bowersox…

Court:Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc

Date published: Sep 30, 2003

Citations

119 S.W.3d 95 (Mo. 2003)

Citing Cases

Warren v. State

” Furthermore, the State did not charge Warren as a prior offender, and he did not admit to either…

State v. Steele

Indeed, "[i]f a material difference exists" between the written judgment and oral pronouncement, "the oral…