Court Opinion

ID: 9777370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:08:30.269162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:53.100691
License: Public Domain

BARDGETT, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the principal opinion and file this concurring opinion to state what the present situation is in Missouri regarding *378the trial of an armed criminal action charge and the underlying felony. This discussion, of course, was unnecessary to the decision of the principal opinion, but I think it is of some general importance to note that the problem of deciding which conviction shall stand as between armed criminal action and the underlying felony should not occur in cases tried after publication of State ex rel. Westfall v. Ruddy, 621 S.W.2d 42 (Mo. banc 1981).
In Westfall, the general question was whether the circuit judge had the authority to order dismissal of either the count charging the underlying felony or the count charging armed criminal action, or whether the state was entitled to try the defendant on both counts. This Court held that the prosecution was entitled to try the accused on both counts, however under the law, the accused could be convicted of only one of them. Therefore, in cases tried after West-fall, the jury should convict the accused of armed criminal action if it finds the defendant committed the felony with the use of a deadly weapon and should assess punishment accordingly. If the jury finds the accused guilty of committing the underlying felony, but without the use of a deadly weapon, it should convict of the underlying felony and assess punishment accordingly.
This leaves the matter to the jury. It will result, however, in one conviction for all that the defendant did and the assessment of one sentence which will be in full accord with the conviction obtained.