Court Opinion

ID: 9779252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:41:32.393555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:24:09.867371
License: Public Domain

CLEMENS, Judge.
Defendant Walter William Kennedy appeals his convictions for assault with intent to kill and first-degree robbery.
At trial the state introduced evidence of Kennedy’s two prior convictions for uttering forged instruments. A deputy circuit clerk testified Kennedy had pleaded guilty to both charges and was ■ sentenced to two concurrent ten-month terms. The warden of the City Workhouse testified Kennedy had served his time there. Consequently, the trial court found defendant had been convicted of two previous felonies, served his sentences and was discharged.
A jury could have found that on the evening of December 18, 1971 the victim, Carl Borns, stopped on his way home to help two men push their stalled car to a nearby service station. After the car was repaired Borns asked for a ride and left with the two men, who introduced themselves as Kennedy and Rodriquez. While en route they said they had to stop at their apartment and invited Borns inside. He followed them into the building and up the stairs where Kennedy drew a gun, hit Borns with it and ordered him to remove his coat, watch and wallet. While Borns was doing so Kennedy shot him in the leg.
After taking Borns’ possessions Kennedy and Rodriquez drove him to a place behind some factories in North St. Louis. They commanded him to get out of the car and as he alighted Kennedy shot him in the jaw. He was shot several more times in rapid succession, bullets striking him in the upper back, buttocks, the back near the *699spine and in the knee. Both assailants then drove away and Borns managed to crawl to a nearby service station where police were called.
Borns gave information resulting in the prompt arrest of defendants Kennedy and Rodriquez at their apartment. One of the service station attendants positively identified defendant at the police station, as did Borns from his hospital bed the next morning. Both made similar identifications at trial.
The jury found defendant guilty on both counts and the court assessed punishment in accordance with the Second Offender Act, § 556.280, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was overruled and the court entered judgment, sentencing him to consecutive terms of one hundred years for assault with intent to kill and seventy years for first-degree robbery. '
Defendant raises five points for review. First, he contends the admission of certain hospital records was error since they were not properly identified and qualified. Second, he objects to the admission of certain testimony because it was irrelevant. Third, he asserts the testimony of three witnesses was hearsay. As noted post these points are not properly preserved for review, but we have elected to consider them. In his two other points defendant argues the trial court erred in assessing punishment and challenges the validity of the sentences imposed.
In his first point defendant contends state’s witness Captain Clarence Smith was not responsible for custody or maintenance of hospital records showing Borns’ gunshot wounds about which the witness testified, and that this is a prerequisite for admis- , sion under the Business Records Act. RSMo 1969, §§ 490.660-490.690, V.A.M.S. In addition, defendant argues that witness Norma Snowden, though qualified to identify those hospital records of which she had charge, was not capable of testifying as to the mode of preparation or the time of the making. According to the defendant this disqualified the records for admission.
We find defendant’s first point is not reviewable because it was not raised either at trial or in defendant’s motion for a new trial. State v. Bowens, 476 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. 1972). But even if the hospital records were improperly admitted we find no prejudice. The facts about the wounds inflicted were established by other witnesses and any error in admitting the evidence is not prejudicial. Kelly v. Terminal Railroad Ass’n of St. Louis, 315 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. 1958).
Defendant’s second point is that the testimony of Charles Crank — one of the two filling station attendants on the night of the robbery — was irrelevant since Crank could not identify defendant at trial and therefore his testimony should have been stricken. This point is not reviewable; it was not set out in defendant’s motion for a new trial and therefore was not preserved. State v. Bowens, supra.
Crank’s testimony however did not lack relevance. He was one of two persons who had seen the three men together. He identified the car Borns said was the one used in transporting him. Crank testified as to the general description of defendant and Rodriquez, including relative height and build; he described defendant’s clothing. Although Crank could not positively identify Kennedy at trial, Crank’s testimony was corroborative of other primary evidence. “The relevancy of evidence in a legal proceeding depends upon whether the fact ‘ . . . tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue, or to corroborate evidence which is relevant and which bears on the principal issue.’ ” State v. Walden, 490 S.W.2d 391 (Mo.App.1973) ; State v. Knight, 356 Mo. 1233, 206 S.W.2d 330 (1947). Crank’s testimony was not irrelevant and deciding its weight was for the jury.
In point three defendant contends the testimony of witnesses describing his *700identification by Carl Borns at the hospital confrontation was hearsay. Again, the question is not reviewable since it was not raised at the trial nor in the motion for a new trial. State v. Bowens, supra.
Appellant relies upon State v. Degraf-fenreid for the proposition that testimony by a witness describing the extrajudicial identification of a defendant by a third person is to be excluded as hearsay. We have considered that case and find it differs factually from our case. In contrast to Degraffenreid the facts here disclose strong primary evidence of defendant’s identification by Borns and one gas station ’ attendant both before trial and in the courtroom. It cannot be said, as it was in Degraffenreid, that the hearsay testimony was such as to “tip the scales against [the] defendant.” State v. Degraffenreid, 477 S.W.2d 57, 1.c. 64 (Mo. banc 1972). We find here the challenged testimony was cumulative and harmless.
As his fourth point defendant asserts it was improper for the court to assess punishment invoking the Second Offender Act because the requisites for applying that Act were not met. According to State v. Blackwell, 459 S.W.2d 268 [3], (Mo. banc 1970), three factors must be proven to support application of the Act: “ . . . that defendant was convicted of a prior offense punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary; that he was sentenced therefor; and that he was subsequently placed on probation, paroled, fined or imprisoned therefor.” Defendant challenges only the first criterion.
Specifically, he purports to distinguish between imprisonment in the City Workhouse and imprisonment in the penitentiary. His imprisonment for two prior forgery offenses having been spent in the City Workhouse, defendant now contends the trial court was precluded from assessing punishment under the Second Offender Act. “Punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary” is a term of art synonymous with the term “felony,” and the use of that phrase is merely a legislative indication that the Second Offender Act applies only where the previous conviction was for a felony. State v. Myers, 470 S.W.2d 803 [1-3] (Mo.App.1971).
According to statutory definition forgery constitutes a felony, RSMo § 561.-011, V.A.M.S., the penalty for which is “imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not less than two years nor more than ten years or by imprisonment in the county jail for a term of not more than one year or by fine . . . or by both . . . ” Defendant’s forgery offenses were punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary. The fact that his sentence was not served there did not prevent application of the Act. “The dispositive factor ... is the offense committed and not the correctional institution . . . involved.” State v. Sykes, 478 S.W.2d 387[4, 5] (Mo. 1972).
Finally, defendant challenges the imposition of consecutive sentences and also alleges the terms were excessive.
Section 546.480, RSMo 1969, V.A. M.S., provides that “when any person shall be convicted of two or more offenses, before sentence shall have been pronounced upon him for either offense, the imprisonment to which he shall be sentenced upon the second or other subsequent conviction shall commence at the termination of the term of imprisonment to which he shall be adjudged upon prior conviction.” The Missouri Supreme Court has declared the statute mandatory and, when applicable, the sentencing court is without authority to impose concurrent terms. King v. Swenson, 423 S.W.2d 699[17] (Mo. banc 1968); Neighbors v. State, 496 S.W.2d 807 [2] (Mo. 1973). The trial court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences.
The one-hundred-year term for assault with intent to kill was within statutory limits. RSMo § 559.180, V.A.M.S.; Crump v. State, 462 S.W.2d 809 [2] (Mo. *701banc 1971). The penalty of seventy years for first-degree robbery was also within permissible limits. RSMo § 560.135, V.A. M.S.; Garrett v. State, 486 S.W.2d 272 [4-6] (Mo. 1972). A sentence within statutory limits is not, as a matter of law, excessive or cruel and unusual. Garrett v. State, supra. This is particularly so when brutality accompanies the offense, as it does here. A long sentence is appropriate and consequently the punishment imposed was not erroneous. State v. Agee, 474 S.W.2d 817[14] (Mo.1971).
Judgment affirmed.
SMITH, P. J., and GUNN, J., concur.
McMILLIAN, J., concurs in separate opinion.