State Missouri v. Donald W. Whitley

On May 24, 1963, appellant, Donald Willis Whitley, was involved in an automobile accident in which three persons in the other
automobile were killed. Appellant subsequently was charged in three separate informations with the crime of manslaughter,
each information alleging the death of a different person. The record in each case recites that after appellant "had an opportunity
and reasonable time to consult with his said counsel and with a friend, and both and his said counsel being present in open
court, waives formal arraignment and enters a plea of guilty to the charge of manslaughter, a felony, and the court states
to the that he has voluntarily entered his plea of guilty to the said charge, and now asks if he has any legal reason to
give why judgment should not be pronounced upon him in accordance with his plea of guilty and the says nothing." In Case
No. 1943 (the case numbers referred to herein are those of the circuit court) in which appellant was charged with manslaughter
resulting from the death of Cliff Fife, the trial court then imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of two years. In
Case No. 1944 in which appellant was charged with manslaughter resulting from the death of Elizabeth Ann Fife, the trial court
imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of two years "said sentence to run consecutively and not concurrently with the
sentence of two years imposed on this date in Case No. 1943." In Case No. 1945 in which appellant was charged with manslaughter
resulting from the death of Denny Dysart Fife, the trial court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of two years
"said sentence to run consecutively and not concurrently with the sentences heretofore imposed on this date in cases numbered
1943 and 1944." In each case appellant has filed a motion, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., in which he alleges that the sentence
is illegal because "the Circuit Court of Howard County, Missouri, imposed upon him a sentence which was not authorized by
law, in that by law the utmost valid sentence the court could impose was a sentence for only one offense of manslaughter resulting
from the single accident instead of the separate sentences imposed by the court." The motion was denied in each case, and
appellant has appealed to this court. The three cases have been consolidated.