Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Martin

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Second Division

May 21, 2019

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent,
v.
MARK LINDELL MARTIN, Appellant.

          Appeal from the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri The Honorable Jeff Harris, Judge

          Before Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

          Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

         Mark L. Martin ("Martin") appeals from the trial court's entry of judgment convicting him of felony criminal nonsupport after a bench trial. Martin argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the total arrearage referred to in the State's information accrued during the three-year statute of limitations period or with respect to the son referred to in the information. Finding no error, we affirm.

         Factual and Procedural History[1]

         On December 10, 2015, the State filed an information ("Information") charging Martin with the class D felony of criminal nonsupport under section 568.040, [2] for failing to provide adequate support during September 1, 2012 and October 31, 2012, for his son, Sean, ("Son"), whom he was legally obligated to support, and for accruing a total arrearage in excess of twelve required monthly child support payments. An amended information ("Amended Information") alleged that "[Martin] owes, a total arrearage of $93, 390.97, which is in excess of an aggregate of twelve monthly payments of $458.00 due under an order of support."[3]

         The following evidence was established during a trial to the court. Martin married Son's mother, ("Mother"), and the couple had three children during the marriage. Martin and Mother divorced in 1999. The divorce decree ordered Martin to pay child support in the amount of $1, 000 per month, but did not allocate the amount amongst the three children. In 2002, Martin's child support obligation was modified by court order to $768 per month.

         In 2006, a trial court found Martin in contempt for failing to comply with the child support order. The court found that Martin had accrued an arrearage of $66, 562.59. Martin's child support obligation was reduced to $595 per month. In 2009, Martin's child support obligation was again modified by court order to $458 per month.

         A Support Calculation Summary produced by the Missouri Department of Social Services, Family Support Division ("Summary") of Martin's child support obligation over time was introduced by the State at trial without objection. The Summary reflected allocation of the monthly support obligation to each child not yet emancipated. During September 2012 and October 2012, the months referred to in the Amended Information, Martin did not make court ordered child support payments in the amount of $458 per month. Martin's child support obligation for those months was allocated on the Summary between two children who were not emancipated, including Son. The Summary indicated that by the end of October 2012, Martin's child support arrearage had grown to $93, 390.97. The Summary indicated that beginning in November 2012, the entirety of Martin's monthly child support obligation of $458 was allocable to Son, the only unemancipated child. By the time Martin's child support obligation ended in October 2015 upon Son's emancipation, Martin's accrued arrearage totaled $106, 515.42. Martin did not provide food, clothing, shelter or medical bills for his minor children, and did not make payments directly to Mother.

         The court found Martin guilty of felony criminal nonsupport. Martin was sentenced to four years in prison with a suspended execution of sentence. Martin was placed on probation for five years with the condition that he pay $1, 000 per month in child support as restitution for the arrearage.

         Martin filed this timely appeal.

         Analysis

         Martin raises two points on appeal. Both points argue that the trial court erred in overruling Martin's motions for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction of felony criminal nonsupport as alleged in the Amended Information. The first point argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the total arrearage referred to in the Amended Information accrued during the three-year statute of limitations. The second point argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the total arrearage accrued as to Son, the only child mentioned in the Amended Information.

         When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction and a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, we do not re-weigh the evidence. State v. Holmes, 399 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Mo. banc 2013). Instead, we "accept as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and ignore all contrary evidence and inferences." Id. "The assessment is not whether this Court believes that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but, rather, whether, in light of the evidence most favorable to the verdict, any rational fact-finder could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Barton, 552 S.W.3d 583, 586-87 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.