Opinion ID: 429623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Status as a Dangerous Offender

Text: 24 Petitioner next argues that the state trial court improperly sentenced him to an enhanced term of imprisonment as a dangerous offender pursuant to Mo.Ann.Stat. Sec. 558.016.3 because there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support the state trial court's finding that he was a dangerous offender. Petitioner does not dispute a prior conviction of robbery but argues that there was no evidence in the record that he knowingly ... endangered or threatened the life of another person or knowingly ... attempted or threatened to inflict serious physical injury on another person during the commission of the cleaning shop robbery. Petitioner argues that at most the record shows that an accomplice fired two shots into the floor near the head of the attendant during the robbery and that the acts of an accomplice cannot constitutionally be imputed to petitioner for purposes of dangerous offender status. We must disagree. The state court of appeals rejected this argument in State v. Johnson, 605 S.W.2d 151, 154-55 (Mo.Ct.App.1980). 25 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.