DANIEL E. SCOTT, J.
Kurt Ross appeals two felony convictions for stealing firearms. We address here only a plain error double jeopardy claim that involves statutory interpretation.
Ross borrowed two heirloom rifles from a friend, sold them to a gun dealer, and pocketed $200. He was charged with and convicted of two counts of felony stealing, one for each rifle sold, and received two concurrent sentences.
Double Jeopardy Claim
Ross charges that the trial court plainly erred in accepting two firearm-theft verdicts and sentencing Ross on two counts instead of just one. To quote Ross, this was double jeopardy since he "stole these firearms at the same time, [which] only constitutes a single offense because section 570.030.3 lists the unit of prosecution as `any firearms.'" Alternately, Ross claims that "any firearms" is ambiguous as to the unit of prosecution, so the rule of lenity requires courts to adopt the statutory construction that favors Ross.
Three sentences from Ross's briefs capture his argument:
This court disagrees.
"The Double Jeopardy Clause is offended only to the extent that a court imposes a multiple punishment where the
Missouri's stealing statute, § 570.030, comprised eight subsections at the time of this offense.
Subsections 2 and 5 dealt with evidentiary issues and certain charging mechanics. The remaining subsections provided felony punishments for various thefts (#3, 4, 6, 7) and that any other theft was a misdemeanor (#8).
As in Heslop, Ross errs in claiming that a felony punishment provision
Ross's argument seems more about two felony punishments, which differs from Point Ill's double jeopardy claim that Ross could be convicted only once on this record. This ends our inquiry; we will not devise our own arguments for reversal or forsake neutrality to advocate for a party. Point denied. Judgment affirmed.
JEFFREY W. BATES, J. — CONCURS.
WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., P.J./C.J. — CONCURS.