State v. Warren, 48162.
| Decision Date | 13 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 48162.,48162. |
| Citation | 344 S.W.2d 88 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ray Eugene WARREN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Ray Eugene Warren pro se.
John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Hugh P. Williamson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On January 4, 1960 Ray Eugene Warren (hereinafter referred to as defendant) filed a motion in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, to vacate and set aside the conviction and sentence of the defendant, in the case of State of Missouri v. Ray Eugene Warren, No. 1945-C, wherein defendant had been convicted of robbery in the first degree with a dangerous and deadly weapon and sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment after verdict by a jury. The motion was entitled, "Application for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis", but in view of the form and content of said application we consider it as filed under Supreme Court Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R. It charged that the judgment and sentence was illegal and void for the reasons therein stated. The motion was denied and defendant has appealed.
This is the second appearance of this defendant, as an appellant in this Court. A prior motion was filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 27.26. It was denied and an appeal taken to this Court. See State v. Warren, Mo.Sup., 321 S.W.2d 705, where much of the record in the original case, as involved in this case, is fully set out.
The present motion alleged that, on June 6, 1955, defendant, "after having been found guilty in a trial by jury for the offense of first degree armed robbery, with a dangerous and deadly weapon, was * * * sentenced to a term of twenty (20) years in the Missouri Penitentiary." It was further alleged that the judgment and sentence was unlawful because: " * * * the defendant was forced to trial within minutes after the court had appointed counsel to defend him, and that the immediately appointed counsel was not given time by the court, to adequately prepare the defense or familiarize himself with the facts of this case, therefore, the defendant was without the effective assistance of counsel * * *; that he (defendant) was not advised of the nature and cause of the accusation, in that he was never shown the contents of the information or indictment against him, and his appointed counsel was not given time by the court to investigate or familiarize with the facts of this case * * *; that several charges were pending against him, and that he did not know which case he would be tried for until this case was in trial proceedings * * *; that the immediately appointed counsel did not have time to prepare a defense for his client, in that the defendant could establish him innocence, if a reasonable time would have been granted by the court, in which the defendant * * * would have assisted his counsel within certain facts that would have caused a different verdict by the jury of this case"; and that "the defendant did not except sic the court appointed counsel on the basis of being forced to trial without time to prepare a defense, and to have process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf * * *."
It was further alleged, "that he couldn't handle his own case because he didn't know anything about the rules of procedure"; and that "the defendant needed counsel and counsel needed time to prepare a defense"; that counsel, appointed and immediately forced to trial within minutes after appointment, could not possibly be familiar with the facts of this case; and that defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. On the facts alleged and argued in the motion defendant asked the court to vacate the mentioned judgment.
In a memorandum denying relief the court made reference to this Court's ruling on the appeal on the prior motion, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Keeble, 51315
...that we have held that such motions as this (like habeas corpus) are in the nature of civil proceedings rather than criminal, State v. Warren, Mo., 344 S.W.2d 88; State v. Smith, Mo., 324 S.W.2d 707; State v. King, Mo., 380 S.W.2d 370. Under Civil Rule 73.01 it would seem permissible for th......
-
State v. King
...of the judgment under which defendant is held. The proceeding is governed by Court rules applicable to civil proceedings. State v. Warren, Mo.Sup., 344 S.W.2d 88, 90; State v. Thompson, Mo.Sup., 324 S.W.2d 133, 135; State v. Johnstone, Mo.Sup., 350 S.W.2d 774, 777[3-6], certiorari denied, 3......
-
Crow v. State
...of conviction by motion under Rule 27.26 or by coram nobis is a civil proceeding and governed by the rules of civil procedure. State v. Warren, Mo., 344 S.W.2d 88; State v. Smith, Mo., 324 S.W.2d 707. Our review is limited to the determination of whether the findings, conclusions and judgme......
-
Deckard v. State, 9302
...the appellant. State v. Stodulski, supra. And since this is a civil proceeding and governed by the rules of civil procedure (State v. Warren, 344 S.W.2d 88 (Mo.1961); State v. Stodulski, supra), our review is necessarily limited to a determination of whether the findings, conclusions and ju......