From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Brawley

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1
Oct 8, 1951
242 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. 1951)

Opinion

No. 42236.

October 8, 1951.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HOWELL COUNTY, GORDON DORRIS, J.

J. Ben Searcy, Eminence, for appellant.

J. E. Taylor, Atty. Gen., Paul N. Chitwood, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.


Defendant has appealed from a conviction and sentence of two years in the penitentiary under Section 560.280, R.S. 1949, on a charge of having embezzled $48,185.41, public moneys which came to him by virtue of his official position as treasurer of Shannon County.

Defendant-appellant has not filed a bill of exceptions and, therefore, this court's review of the cause is necessarily limited to the record proper. State v. Birkner, Mo.Sup., 229 S.W.2d 674; State v. Nichols, Mo.Sup., 165 S.W.2d 674; Section 547.270, R.S. 1949.

The amended information, under which defendant was tried, charged substantially in the language of the Section 560.280, supra, that defendant was an officer, treasurer of Shannon County, duly elected, qualified and acting under the Constitution and laws of this state; that, by virtue of his office, he was intrusted with and had charge and custody of public moneys for safekeeping and disbursement according to law; and that he did unlawfully, fraudulently, and feloniously embezzle, make way with, secrete and convert to his own use the public moneys in the stated amount. The information was sufficient. State v. Baker, Mo.Sup., 285 S.W. 416; State v. Noland, 111 Mo. 473, 19 S.W. 715. See also State v. Manley, 107 Mo. 364, 17 S.W. 800.

The jury's verdict was responsive to the charge set forth in the information; and the punishment assessed by the jury was within the limit prescribed by statute. Section 560.280, supra; Sections 560.155 and 560.160, R.S. 1949. The record also shows defendant was present in court and was granted allocution, and judgment was duly pronounced, all in compliance with statute. Section 546.550, 546.560 and 546.570, R.S. 1949.

We find no reversible error in the record proper.

The judgment should be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

LOZIER and COIL, CC., concur.


The foregoing opinion by VAN OSDOL, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.

All of the Judges concur.


Summaries of

State v. Brawley

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1
Oct 8, 1951
242 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. 1951)
Case details for

State v. Brawley

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. BRAWLEY

Court:Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1

Date published: Oct 8, 1951

Citations

242 S.W.2d 564 (Mo. 1951)

Citing Cases

State v. Michels

" Consequently, there was nothing arbitrary or erroneous, as here complained, in having instructed on the…

State v. Dees

The information in the instant case charges in meticulous detail all of the facts necessary to show that…