A unanimous Missouri Supreme Court ruled this week that a man who slammed his hand against the counter during a bank robbery made enough of a threat to meet the state law's definition of second-degree robbery.
The high court's ruling reinstated Claude Dale Brooks' conviction and 25-year prison sentence for an Aug. 25, 2011 robbery of a Regions Bank branch in St. Charles.
The ruling also overturned last February's 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the Eastern District appeals court in St. Louis, that Brooks had not "forcibly" stolen the money and, therefore, should be guilty only of stealing.
Although the arguments are similar and the appeals court rulings reached the same conclusion, Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling doesn't affect a separate case from the Western District appeals court in Kansas City that involves a New Bloomfield bank robbery.
The high court still is taking briefs in that case, and has not yet scheduled arguments on it.
However, the court's ruling on Wednesday is more than just an academic legal discussion.
State law defines "second-degree robbery" as "forcibly" stealing property - "when, in the course of stealing ... he uses or threatens the immediate use of physical force upon another person" - and makes the crime a Class B felony, with a possible prison term of "not less than five years and not to exceed 15 years."
"Stealing" is defined as "appropriat(ing) property or services of another with the purpose to deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by means of deceit or coercion." Stealing is a Class C felony, where any prison sentence cannot "exceed seven years."
The Supreme Court's ruling noted Brooks' longer sentence was based on St. Charles County Circuit Judge Jon Cunningham's finding that Brooks' two prior federal bank robbery convictions made him a "prior and persistent offender" under state law, subject to additional prison time that, at a minimum, is 50 percent of the basic sentence.
THE ST. CHARLES CASE AND CLAUDE BROOKS
The court records show Brooks entered the bank "wearing bulky clothing, a long-haired wig, a baseball cap and sunglasses. He approached teller A.E. and handed her a note that read: "50 & 100's, No Bait Bills, Bottom Drawer.'"
He did not show a weapon nor threaten to use one.
However, when the teller began to walk away from her station in order to get the money, "Brooks slammed his hand down hard on the counter, telling her to "get back here.' After explaining to Brooks that the money was elsewhere, A.E. retrieved the money and placed it on the counter in front of Brooks. He then put the money into a bag and left the bank." Police arrested him a short while later.
The appeals court decided Brooks had not met the legal requirement of "threatening" to use physical force.
"The record shows that Brooks spoke to A.E. in a low tone throughout the encounter, never raised his voice and did not verbally threaten A.E. with physical force," Judge Lisa Van Amburg wrote in the Feb. 18 opinion. "She testified that Brooks never tried to touch or strike her, never indicated or implied that he had a weapon ... and that Brooks kept his hands on the counter throughout the incident."
Therefore, Van Amburg and Judge Patricia Cohen ruled there wasn't any threat of "immediate use of physical force." Judge Gary M. Gaertner dissented from the appeals court ruling.
In Wednesday's eight-page Supreme Court ruling overturning the appeals court, and reinstating the trial court's verdict and sentence, Judge Zel M. Fischer wrote: "Banks are regular targets of robberies, and their employees have a heightened awareness of security threats. A demand for money in that context is an implicit threat of the use of force in and of itself."
Repeating the description of what happened when Brooks handed his note to the teller in St. Charles, Fischer added: "A reasonable inference drawn from Brooks's actions was a threat of immediate physical force to her person should the teller not comply with his demand. ... Brooks's slamming of his hand forcefully on the counter certainly could be considered a threat of immediate physical force to A.E. should she refuse to comply."
Even while the courts were considering his appeals, Brooks has been in prison on the original, 25-year sentence.
Now 45, he currently is in the state's Southeast Correctional Center, Charleston.
THE NEW BLOOMFIELD CASE AND GARY COLEMAN
On Sept. 30, a three-judge panel of the Western District appeals court voted 2-1 to overturn Judge Kevin Crane's conviction and 10-year sentence in Callaway County for Gary Leland Coleman for the Oct. 6, 2012 robbery of the Bank Star One in New Bloomfield.
Coleman, now 51, of Jefferson City, is at the Farmington Correctional Center.
In his 10-page opinion, Judge Joseph M. Ellis noted the St. Louis appeals court's ruling in the Brooks case, and that both appeals courts had found there had not been a threat of violence to qualify as second-degree robbery.
But the facts of the two cases are - slightly - different.
The Western District appeals court ruling noted Coleman entered the New Bloomfield bank at 9:18 a.m. wearing sunglasses, walked straight to a teller, "rested his forearm on the counter, leaned slightly forward, handed (the teller) a plastic grocery sack, and said, "I need you to do me a favor. Put the money in this bag.' He spoke in a low, serious tone."
There was no hand slammed on the counter. Also, like the Brooks case, no weapon was displayed nor suggested.
But, when an assistant branch manager was heading over to see what was going on, Coleman told her: "Ma'am, stop where you are and don't move any farther."
Whether those words were enough to be considered a "threat" under the law likely will be argued before the Supreme Court next year.
The state's reply brief is due by Dec. 1.