Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Pierce

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided June 12, 2018No. SC 96095Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

OPINION CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART

Patricia Breckenridge, judge

I concur in the principal opinion's holding that the circuit court did not err in overruling Bryan Pierce's motion to suppress evidence. I respectfully dissent, however, from the principal opinion's holding that the circuit did not err in sentencing Mr. Pierce based on a mistaken belief as to the applicable enhanced range of punishment.

The principal opinion acknowledges the circuit court misstated the range of punishment on the record at the sentencing *907hearing when it stated expressly, on the record, that the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. TuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. State v. HartSupreme Court of Missouri · 2013
  3. State of Missouri v. Sylvester R. Sisco IISupreme Court of Missouri · 2015
  4. Wraggs v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1977
  5. State v. TaylorMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API