Duke v. State

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 27.26 motion. We affirm.

Here, movant was convicted of assault with intent to maim with malice aforethought, § 559.180, RSMo 1969.1 Movant contends, however, that because the term “malice” rather than “malice aforethought” was used in certain stages of his case, he was actually convicted of assault with intent to maim without malice aforethought, § 559.190. Since § 559.190 provided for a maximum sentence of five years, unlike the unlimited range allowed by § 559.180, mov-ant argues his twenty-year…