Case Name: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Clarence A. WILBURN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1978-12-27
Citations: 575 S.W.2d 914
Docket Number: No. 39703
Parties: STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Clarence A. WILBURN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: DOWD, P. J., and STOCKARD, Special Judge, concur.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 575
Pages: 914–915

Head Matter:
STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Clarence A. WILBURN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 39703.
Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division Four.
Dec. 27, 1978.
Robert C. Babione, Public Defender, Nick A. Zotos, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., Gerard Car- mody, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.

Opinion:
CRIST, Judge.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of Illegal Possession of a Controlled Substance, Schedule I — heroin. The court, utilizing the Second Offender Act and the penalty provisions of the Narcotic Drug Act, assessed his punishment at twenty years confinement in the Missouri Department of Corrections.
On February 23, 1976, defendant was charged with felonious possession of heroin. On June 4, 1976, a second amended information was filed. Defendant was additionally charged with two prior convictions, possession of a narcotic drug and illegal sale of a narcotic drug. Trial began on September 6, 1977.
Defendant complains of the amended charges of the two prior convictions for the reason that it pleaded a new and more severe offense in violation of Rule 24.02. We disagree.
The purpose of the amendment was to make the Second Offender Act and the penalty provisions of the Narcotic Drug Act applicable in assessing punishment. No new offense or crime was charged by the amendment. We have previously spoken on this issue. State v. Shumate, 516 S.W.2d 297 (Mo.App.1974); see § 195.200, subsection 3 RSMo. Supp. 1975.
The judgment is affirmed.
DOWD, P. J., and STOCKARD, Special Judge, concur.