Court Opinion

ID: 9773404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:44:47.871773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:53.397910
License: Public Domain

GREENE, Judge,
concurring in result.
In regard to the double jeopardy issue, affirmance in this case is mandated by State v. Gardner, 741 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1987). I do not agree with the reasoning or holding of Gardner, but we are bound to follow it, as it is our duty to follow the last controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Farmers and Merchants Ins. *757Co. v. Cologna, 736 S.W.2d 559, 570 (Mo.App.1987).
However, the principal opinion goes beyond Gardner, and seems to indicate that a different test for determining if double jeopardy exists should be used, when the alleged crime is retaining stolen property, than would be used if the alleged crime is receiving stolen property. I do not believe this to be the law, and find nothing in Gardner to indicate that it is.
Further, since Horsey did not properly preserve his double jeopardy issue, which the first three pages of the principal opinion indicate is the case, the remainder of the opinion concerning double jeopardy is superfluous.
I concur in result.