Title: State v. Rohra
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC96796
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: May 1, 2018

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc
STATE OF MISSOURI, 
    ) 
    ) 
Respondent, 
    ) 
    ) 
v. 
    ) 
No. SC96796 
    ) 
ALOK KUMAR ROHRA, 
 ) 
    ) 
Appellant. 
    ) 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS 
The Honorable Michael F. Stelzer, Judge 
Alok Rohra appeals the circuit court's judgment convicting him of unlawful 
possession of a firearm in violation of § 571.070.1  Rohra argues the amended complaint 
and indictment charging him with unlawful possession of a firearm failed to allege the 
essential element of a prior "conviction."  Rohra waived this argument when he pleaded 
guilty.  The judgment is affirmed.2   
1 All references are to RSMo Supp. 2010 unless otherwise noted.   
2 This Court has jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to article V, section 10 of the Missouri 
Constitution.  
Opinion issued May 1, 2018
2 
Factual and Procedural Background 
Rohra pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm, § 571.070, 
one count of possession of marijuana, §195.202, and possession of drug paraphernalia, 
§ 195.233.  The state charged Rohra with unlawful possession of a firearm for knowingly
possessing a firearm after being "convicted of the felonies of possession of a controlled 
substance [Ecstasy] and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to 
distribute [marijuana] in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma."  Rohra moved 
to dismiss the charge on grounds he did not have a prior "conviction" to support the 
unlawful possession of a firearm charge because the Oklahoma district court entered a 
deferred judgment.  The circuit court overruled Rohra's motion to dismiss.  Rohra, 
thereafter, pleaded guilty.  
At the plea hearing, Rohra testified he understood the charges and wished to plead 
guilty.  Rohra further testified he was not under the influence of drugs or medication and 
had no mental issue interfering with his understanding of the proceedings.  Rohra then 
testified as follows:    
[The Court]: Okay.  You understand you don't have to plea guilty? 
[Rohra]: Yes, sir. 
[The Court]: All right.  If you don't plead guilty you have the right to a judge 
trial or a jury trial.  You have the right to the services of a lawyer during that 
trial.  The right to confront the State's witnesses and cross-examine them, and 
the right to subpoena your own witnesses and present evidence.  Do you 
understand all of that? 
[Rohra]: Yes, sir. 
3 
[The Court]: You also have the right to remain silent and not testify against 
yourself. Do you know what that means? 
[Rohra]: Yes, sir. 
[The Court]: Okay.  You are also presumed innocent until proven guilty 
beyond a reasonable doubt.  Do you understand that? 
[Rohra]: Yes, sir. 
[The Court]: And if you plea guilty you will be waiving these rights and 
you will not have a trial, nor an appeal.  Do you understand that?   
[Rohra]: Yes, sir.  
(Emphasis added).  
Following this exchange, the prosecutor explained the evidence to support the 
unlawful possession of a firearm charge: 
Had this case proceeded to trial the State's evidence would prove beyond a 
reasonable doubt that on September 10, 2015, in the City of St. Louis, State 
of Missouri the defendant committed the following crimes: First as to Count 
I, the Class C felony of unlawful possession of a firearm, in that the defendant 
knowingly possessed a semiautomatic pistol, a firearm, and on July 10, 2013, 
the defendant was convicted of the felonies of possession of a controlled 
substance, and unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to 
distribute in the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma. 
After the prosecutor stated the evidence supporting the charges, Rohra testified there 
was nothing he would add to the prosecutor's statement, the statement of the evidence was 
true, and it was his decision to plead guilty.  The circuit court found Rohra's plea was 
voluntary, there was a factual basis for the plea, and Rohra was guilty beyond a reasonable 
doubt.  The circuit court sentenced Rohra to four years' imprisonment for unlawful 
possession of a firearm, but suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on 
probation for two years.  Rohra appeals. 
4 
 
Analysis 
Rohra's sole point relied on asserts the circuit court erred by overruling his motions 
to dismiss and to quash the unlawful possession of a weapon charge because the deferred 
judgment in Oklahoma does not qualify as a "conviction" pursuant to § 571.070.  Rohra 
asserts this argument challenges the sufficiency of the charging documents and, therefore, 
is not barred by his guilty plea.  
"A plea of guilty and the ensuing conviction comprehend all of the factual and legal 
elements necessary to sustain a binding, final judgment of guilt and a lawful sentence."  
United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563, 569 (1989).  "By entering a plea of guilty, the accused 
is not simply stating that he did the discrete acts described in the indictment; he is admitting 
guilt of a substantive crime."  Id. at 570.  Consistent with these principles, "the general rule 
is that a guilty plea waives all nonjurisdictional defects, including statutory and 
constitutional guarantees."  Garris v. State, 389 S.W.3d 648, 651 (Mo. banc 2012).  
Because an unconditional guilty plea waives "any challenge to the merits of the underlying 
conviction," review is generally limited to a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief 
to determine if the plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily.  State v. Craig, 287 S.W.3d 
676, 679 (Mo. banc 2009).  The only exceptions to the Rule 24.035 procedure, and the only 
claims reviewable in a direct appeal following an unconditional guilty plea, are claims 
disputing the subject-matter jurisdiction of the circuit court or claims challenging the 
sufficiency of the charging document.  Id.   
"The purpose of an indictment or information is to inform the accused of charges 
against him so that he may prepare an adequate defense and to prevent retrial on the same 
5 
charges in case of an acquittal."  State v. O'Connell, 726 S.W.2d 742, 746 (Mo. banc 1987) 
(internal citation omitted).3  A challenge to the sufficiency of a charging document tests 
whether it alleges the essential elements of the offense and clearly apprises the defendant 
of facts constituting the offense.  Id.  "As a general rule, it is enough to charge the offense 
in the language of the statute alleged to be violated if the statute states all the constituent 
elements of the offense."  Id.  (internal quotation omitted).   
Rohra's argument that his Oklahoma deferred judgment does not qualify as a 
"conviction" does not fit within the exception permitting a challenge to the sufficiency of 
the charging document following a guilty plea.  By challenging the meaning of the word 
"conviction" as alleged in the charging document, Rohra necessarily admits the state 
charged the offense of unlawful possession of a weapon "in the language of the statute 
alleged to have been violated."  Id.  As Rohra concedes, and the record demonstrates, the 
state charged the essential fact of "conviction" as an element of the offense of unlawful 
possession of a firearm as defined by § 571.070.  Rohra's argument concerning the 
interpretation of the word "conviction," as used in § 571.070, is a substantive legal 
argument Rohra waived by unconditionally pleading guilty and "admitting guilt of a 
substantive crime."  Broce, 488 U.S. at 570.  Rohra's unconditional guilty plea waived this 
argument on appeal. 
3 Rule 23.01(b) provides an indictment shall state: (1) "the name of the defendant;" (2) "the 
essential facts constituting the elements of the offense charged;" (3) "the date and place of the 
offense;" (4) "the statute alleged to have been violated;" and (5) "the name and degree … of the 
offense."   
6 
Conclusion 
The judgment is affirmed. 
_______________________ 
Zel M. Fischer, Chief Justice 
All concur.