Achter v. State
| Decision Date | 20 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 10232,10232 |
| Parties | Leslie Allen ACHTER, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Fred L. Scherer, Jr., Sikeston, for movant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., W. Mitchell Elliott, Asst. Atty. Gne., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Leslie Allen Achter was found guilty of burglary and stealing by a jury. That conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Achter, 521 S.W.2d 761 (Mo.App.1975). He then sought relief via a motion under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R. When this was denied without evidentiary hearing by sustention of the state's motion to dismiss, movant appealed.
In five subparagraphs of paragraph 8 of his motion, movant complains that the trial court in the criminal case erred (a) in denying his motion for continuance, (b) in denying his motion to suppress, (i) in refusing his offered instructins, (k) in giving instructions offered by the state, and (q) in denying his motion for a mental examination. In subparagraphs (l) and (m) he questions the sufficiency of the evidence at the criminal trial to support his conviction. Each of these matters was considered and rejected on direct appeal (State v. Achter, supra, 521 S.W.2d 761) and, therefore, cannot be considered in a postconviction proceeding under Rule 27.26. Sweazea v. State, 515 S.W.2d 499, 501(1) (Mo. banc 1974). By sustaining the sufficiency of the evidence on direct appeal, the court also answered movant's claims under subparagraphs (d), (e) and (f) of his motion that the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict (actually, motion for judgment of acquittal--Rule 26.10) at the close of the state's evidence and at the close of all the evidence, and his motion for a new trial. If there was indeed error in overruling movant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's evidence, such error was waived when movant thereafter introduced evidence of his own. State v. Lewis, 526 S.W.2d 49, 52(1) (Mo.App.1975). A Rule 27.26 motion may not substitute for a direct appeal; neither may it be employed as a second appeal, nor be used to challenge the sufficiency of all the evidence. Harrod v. State, 513 S.W.2d 471 (Mo.App.1974).
Through subparagraph (c) of his motion, movant asserts he was denied his right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses. In contradiction of this allegation, movant also contends he was forced to trial when some subpoenas issued on his behalf were returned 'not found' or 'non est.' The court nisi which denied the Rule 27.26 motion had before it the transcript on appeal in the criminal case which contains a record of the hearing held on movant's motion for a continuance. From that record it is clear that subpoenas were issued at defendant's request on more than one occasion for seven prospective witnesses. Three thereof were served. Testimony at the hearing made it clear that the officials charged with serving the subpoenas had, in fact, made diligent search for the missing witnesses before the subpoenas were returned non est. One unfound witness was endorsed on the information as a proposed witness for the state and all unserved witnesses were shown to be living elsewhere than the State of Missouri. The state cannot be required to be successful in subpoenaing witnesses in every instance. All that is required is that the officers expend a good faith effort to secure the service of process. Movant's contention is without merit as was evident from the record without an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Bolden, 461 F.2d 998, 1000(2) (8th Cir. 1972).
Subparagraphs (g), (h) and (j) allude to alleged errors committed by the trial court in admitting state's exhibits and permitting the jury to consider them. Any error in the admission of evidence is a trial error, which is not cognizable in a Rule 27.26 proceeding. O'Neal v. State, 486 S.W.2d 206, 208(3) (Mo.1972); Mayo v. State, 524 S.W.2d 181, 182(3) (Mo.App.1975).
By subparagraph (n) movant says his constitutional right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment has been violated. This refers to the treatment movant has allegedly received in the state penitentiary after conviction. However, a postconviction motion 'may be invoked only by one in custody claiming the right to have a sentence vacated, set aside or corrected' (Rule 27.26(b)(1)), and since this subparagraph does not claim such a right it need not be considered. Laster v. State, 461 S.W.2d 839, 840--841(5) (Mo.1971).
In subparagraph (o) movant writes that his 'right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated.' This allegation and those set forth in paragraph 9(o) of the motion are mere conclusions, wholly devoid of facts and were properly dismissed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Joos
...was that the officers charged with serving the subpoena expend a good faith effort to secure the service of process. Achter v. State, 545 S.W.2d 86, 87-88 (Mo.App.1976). That good faith effort is demonstrated by the One further point must be addressed. We address it only upon the facts befo......
-
Watkins v. State
...during the course of the trial which is not reviewable under Rule 27.26. Lane v. State, 611 S.W.2d 44, 46 (Mo.App.1981); Achter v. State, 545 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Mo.App.1976). In the instant case the motion for new trial filed by defense counsel made no mention of the prosecutor's questioning of......
-
State v. Gardner, 10462
...at the close of the state's evidence. This claim of error was waived when defendant thereafter introduced evidence. Achter v. State, 545 S.W.2d 86, 87 (Mo.App.1976). In addition, it was not necessary for the state to introduce evidence that pethidine was a controlled substance. Section 195.......
-
Molasky v. State, 49592
...a good faith effort to secure service of process and the state cannot be required to be successful in every instance. Achter v. State, 545 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Mo.App.1976). The movant has not alleged any bad Nor did the reviewing court err in sustaining the state's motion in limine excluding the......