State v. Mendoza

8 Citing cases

  1. State v. Jones

    596 S.W.3d 168 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    State v. Barker , 410 S.W.3d 225, 236 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013). "Inasmuch as our felony-murder statute expressly intends multiple punishments for both second degree felony murder and the underlying felony, such punishments when imposed in a single trial do not constitute double jeopardy." Id. ; see alsoState v. Coody, 867 S.W.2d 661, 664 (Mo. App. S.D. 1993) ; State v. Mendoza, 115 S.W.3d 873, 876 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) ; Johnson v. State , 477 S.W.3d 2, 8 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Section 565.021 (emphasis added).

  2. State v. Dudley

    303 S.W.3d 203 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 12 times

    "[S]ection 565.021.1(2), the felony murder statute, specifically authorizes cumulative punishment with any related felony other than murder or manslaughter." State v. Mendoza, 115 S.W.3d 873, 876 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003). `"A standard rule of statutory construction is that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another.'"

  3. Johnson v. State

    477 S.W.3d 2 (E.D. Mo. 2015)

    See State v. Barker, 410 S.W.3d 225, 236 (Mo.App.W.D.2013). See also State v. Mendoza, 115 S.W.3d 873, 876 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) (affirming the defendant's convictions for child abuse and second-degree murder). Furthermore, “a defendant may not take advantage of self-invited error or error of [her] own making.”

  4. Johnson v. State

    477 S.W.3d 2 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    See State v. Barker, 410 S.W.3d 225, 236 (Mo.App.W.D.2013). See also State v. Mendoza, 115 S.W.3d 873, 876 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) (affirming the defendant's convictions for child abuse and second-degree murder). Furthermore, “a defendant may not take advantage of self-invited error or error of [her] own making.”

  5. State v. Barker

    410 S.W.3d 225 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 21 times

    Id.In reliance upon the Southern District's analysis in Coody, this Court, in State v. Mendoza, 115 S.W.3d 873, 876 (Mo.App. W.D.2003), likewise held that a court entering convictions for both second-degree murder and abuse of a child does not violate a defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy. In Mendoza, the defendant averred that his double jeopardy rights were violated because he was twice punished for the same offense in that child abuse is a lesser included offense of second-degree felony murder.

  6. State v. Barker

    WD73856 (Mo. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2013)

    Id.In reliance upon the Southern District's analysis in Coody, this Court, in State v. Mendoza, 115 S.W.3d 873, 876 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003), likewise held that a court entering convictions for both second-degree murder and abuse of a child does not violate a defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy. In Mendoza, the defendant averred that his double jeopardy rights were violated because he was twice punished for the same offense in that child abuse is a lesser included offense of second-degree felony murder.

  7. Mendoza v. State

    256 S.W.3d 149 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)

    Before PAUL M. SPINDEN, P.J., JAMES M. SMART, JR., and JOSEPH M. ELLIS, JJ. Prior report: 115 S.W.3d 873. Order

  8. State v. Fuelling

    145 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 4 times

    The State subsequently charged Mr. Mendoza with felony child abuse and second-degree murder. See State v. Mendoza, 115 S.W.3d 873, 875 (Mo.App.W.D. 2003). A jury convicted Mr. Mendoza of these crimes, and this court affirmed.