 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Heyn10/27/2005
Appellant Harold Heyn ("Defendant") was charged by information with escaping from custody and committing violence against an employee of the Department of Corrections ("DOC") in violation of Section 575.200 and Section 217.385, respectively. The case was tried to the court. The judge dismissed the escape from custody charge, but he found Defendant guilty of committing violence against a DOC employee. The court sentenced Defendant to eight years imprisonment, which is within the authorized range of punishment for a class B felony. Section 217.385.1; Section 558.011(2). Execution of the sentence was suspended, and Defendant was placed on supervised probation for five years.
Defendant has appealed from the judgment of conviction. In his lone point relied on, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he knowingly committed violence against a DOC employee . We affirm.
I. Standard of Review
This Court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence in a court-tried criminal case by applying the same standard used in a jury-tried case. State v. Mann, 129 S.W.3d 462, 465 (Mo. App. 2004). In a case tried without a jury, the trial court's findings have the force and effect of a jury verdict. Rule 27.01(b); State v. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo. banc 2002). Our review is limited to determining whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. The State may prove its case by presenting direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant to each element of the crime. State v. Howell, 143 S.W.3d 747, 752 (Mo. App. 2004).
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we accept as true all evidence favorable to the State, including all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d at 407-08. We disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Id.; Howell, 143 S.W.3d at 752. The trial court determines the weight and credibility of the witnesses' testimony. Crawford, 68 S.W.3d at 408. The judge "may believe all, some, or none of the testimony of a witness when considered with the facts, circumstances and other testimony in the case." Id. Our summary of the evidence presented at trial, which is set forth below, has been prepared in accordance with these principles.
II. Facts and Procedural History
In January 2003, Pamela Burnett ("Burnett") was employed by the DOC as a probation and parole officer. She supervised people who were on probation and parole in Ozark, Douglas and Wright Counties. Defendant was one the parolees under Burnett's supervision. As a condition of Defendant's parole, he was required to refrain from consuming alcohol.
On the evening of January 10th, Burnett was on duty as a DOC parole officer when she received a telephone call concerning Defendant. The caller stated that Defendant was at a local residence, drinking alcohol and taking Vicodin simultaneously. The caller was concerned because Defendant might be jeopardizing his health and because Defendant had driven himself to the residence.
Since drinking alcohol was a violation of the conditions of Defendant's parole, Burnett began an investigation. She and Douglas County Sheriff's Deputy Lonnie Huddleston ("Huddleston") drove in a marked patrol car to the residence, which was located about 10 miles from the Sheriff's office. When they arrived, Huddleston walked to the front door of the residence while Burnett waited in the patrol car. Huddleston looked through a window and saw Defendant lying on the living room floor. There were beer cans all over the floor. Huddleston motioned for Burnett to
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|