Barnett v. State, 43437
| Decision Date | 30 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 43437,43437 |
| Citation | 618 S.W.2d 735 |
| Parties | Darrell William BARNETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Clinton B. Roberts, Farmington, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Thomas G. Auffenberg, Kristie Green, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Gary E. Stevenson, Pros. Atty., Farmington, for respondent.
Darrell William Barnett, movant, pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary second degree. He was sentenced to serve a term of ten years in the Division of Corrections. He subsequently filed a motion under Rule 27.26 seeking to have the court vacate the guilty plea. The trial court, after making its findings, denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant appeals contending that the court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal, movant claims the following allegations in his motion entitled him to an evidentiary hearing: (1) that movant's mental condition, at the time of his guilty plea, was so debilitating that his consequent guilty plea was involuntary; (2) that movant was denied effective assistance of counsel in that counsel allowed movant to plead guilty to the charge of burglary without apprising him of the elements of burglary and failed to object to the trial court's consideration of unconstitutional prior convictions in arriving at a maximum sentence for movant; and (3) that movant was prejudicially sentenced by the trial court's consideration of unconstitutional prior convictions in arriving at a maximum sentence for movant.
In order to qualify for an evidentiary hearing on a 27.26 motion, movant must meet the requirements set forth in Kearns v. State, 583 S.W.2d 748, 750 (Mo.App.1979). These requirements are: (1) the motion must allege facts, not conclusions, warranting relief; (2) these facts must raise matters not refuted by the files and records in the case; and (3) the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the defendant.
The record reveals that movant's trial was to begin on August 30, 1977. After the jury was impaneled, movant decided to enter a plea of guilty. During the plea proceeding, the court specifically and extensively questioned movant with respect to his understanding of his plea of guilty. Movant testified that he understood the consequences of his plea and the nature of the charge against him and that he had discussed the case with his attorney on numerous occasions. Further, movant stated that he had been given medication the night before while in the hospital for tests (not mental) but that this did not affect his ability to reason and that he fully knew what he was doing. Movant related in detail to the court the manner in which he had committed the crime. No request for mental examination had been filed prior to the plea and movant had not asserted the defense of mental disease or defect. Finally, movant's counsel stated he knew of no reason why movant should not enter a plea of guilty.
Movant's first contention is that his mental condition was so debilitating that his consequent guilty plea was involuntary. The test as to whether an accused is competent to plead is "whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him." Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402, 403, 80 S.Ct. 788, 789, 4 L.Ed.2d 824; Pulliam v. State, 480 S.W.2d 896 (Mo.1972). The trial court in its findings held that the defendant's plea was voluntarily and intelligently made. The record substantiates this finding. Movant had discussed the case several times with his attorney, he acknowledged his understanding of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wickman v. State, 13882
...Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407, 411 (Mo. banc 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 911, 95 S.Ct. 832, 42 L.Ed.2d 841 (1975); Barnett v. State, 618 S.W.2d 735, 736 (Mo.App.1981). Our review is limited to a determination whether the findings, conclusions and judgment of the motion court are clearly ......
-
Sanders v. State, 50483
...Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407, 411 (Mo. banc 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 911, 95 S.Ct. 832, 43 L.Ed.2d 841 (1975); Barnett v. State, 618 S.W.2d 735, 736 (Mo.App.1981). The record conclusively shows that before accepting the guilty plea, the trial court had questioned appellant extensivel......
-
Curtis v. State, 54605
...matters not refuted by the record and the matters complained of must be prejudicial to the movant. The court relied upon Barnett v. State, 618 S.W.2d 735 (Mo.App.1981) and other decisions. The court concluded that movant was not denied effective assistance of counsel under the standards set......
-
Shelley v. State, 46579
...first point fails to allege facts sufficient for Rule 27.26 relief, much less to warrant an evidentiary hearing. See Barnett v. State, 618 S.W.2d 735, 737 (Mo.App.1981). Movant's second point claims an evidentiary hearing should have been granted because defense counsel prohibited movant fr......