Legal Opinion · Dissent

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent v. WILLIAM E. COPHER

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 11, 2015No. SD33192Published

1DissentNancy Steffen Rahmeyer, J.

I respectfully dissent. The plain meaning of section 565.074.31provides for two separate methods of enhancing the sentence. The first concerns a conviction within this State; the second for convictions in any “other” state. The “other” is implied by the sentence.

Our primary objective in interpreting section 565.074.3 is to discern the General Assembly’s intent from the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute’s words. See State v. Jones, 172 S.W.3d 448, 451 (Mo.App.W.D.2005). I begin by noting that the first clause of section 565.074.3, in explicit terms, authorizes enhancement of domestic…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. GrahamMissouri Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. Groh v. BallardMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. State v. MooreMissouri Court of Appeals · 1997
  4. State v. JonesMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API