Betts v. State, 34886
| Decision Date | 27 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 34886,34886 |
| Citation | 493 S.W.2d 361 |
| Parties | James BETTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. . Louis District |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Harold L. Volkmer, Hannibal, for appellant.
Ronald R. McKenzie, Pros. Atty., Hannibal, John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles B. Blackmar, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
This is an appeal by James Betts from an order of the Hannibal Court of Common Pleas, Marion County, overruling his Criminal Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., motion to vacate, set aside, or correct judgment of conviction and the 10 year sentence for forcible rape entered on a plea of guilty. The Court of Common Pleas summarily denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court of Common Pleas stated: 'This Court finds and concludes that the record and transcript of the proceedings at the plea of guilty conclusively demonstrate that the prisoner, James Betts, is not entitled to any relief under his Motion filed under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26 . . .'
Appellant's 27.26 motion was based on: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel in that counsel told Betts to plead guilty or he would receive a larger sentence; (2) the charge that his guilty plea was made under great mental strain because of the threat of a much greater sentence; (3) the claim that his prisoner's rights under the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution had been violated.
Appellant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to appoint counsel and to hold an evidentiary hearing prior to overruling appellant's motion to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment, because the motion properly raises issues of fact and questions of law as required by Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R.
In a recent case, Pauley v. State, 487 S.W.2d 565 (Mo.1972), the Court held that, '. . . No evidentiary hearing was required by Criminal Rule 27.26(e), V.A.M.R., because the transcript conclusively shows that appellant is entitled to no relief and is sufficient to insulate the plea of guilty from subsequent attack in collateral proceedings, under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274; State of Missouri v. Turley, 8 Cir., 443 F.2d 1313, 1318, and Colbert v. State, Mo.Sup., 486 S.W.2d 219 . . .'
In this instance the record indicates that: (1) the defendant desired to enter a plea of guilty; (2) the defendant knew of his right to a trial by jury and that his trial was set for February 23, 1971; (3) the defendant knew that if he entered a plea of guilty he would be waiving his right to a jury trial; (4) the defendant was aware that the range of punishment was from two years in prison to death; (5) the defendant knew the nature of the charge against him; (6) the defendant knew what he had done to lead to this charge being made against him; (7) the defendant stated that he was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty; (8) defendant's plea was voluntarily made on his part; and (9) the defendant was satisfied that his attorneys had rendered effective assistance in connection with his case.
In the face of this record appellant contends that he was represented by ineffective counsel because counsel told appellant to plead guilty or he would receive a more severe sentence from a jury when convicted. The record indicates that appellant's attorneys knew the facts of appellant's case and the evidence that the state intended to offer. Based on these facts appellant's attorneys advised the appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...requires such a hearing. Humphrey vs. State (Mo.), 502 S.W.2d 251; Paulez (Pauley) vs. State (Mo.), 487 S.W.2d 565; Belts (Betts) vs. State (Mo.App.), 493 S.W.2d 361; Meeks vs. State (Mo.App.), 512 S.W.2d 215; Ross vs. State (Mo.App.), 517 S.W.2d 185; Hogshooter vs. State (Mo.App.), 514 S.W......
-
Winston v. State
...504 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Mo.1974); Loflin v. State, supra, 492 S.W.2d at 773; State v. Miner, 498 S.W.2d 814, 816 (Mo.App.1973); Betts v. State, supra, 493 S.W.2d at 362; Perryman v. State, 506 S.W.2d 480, 483 The Supreme Court of the United States has never held that the right to appointed counsel......
-
Hogshooter v. State, 9645
...was correct at arriving at its stated determination summary denial of appellant's motion was likewise proper.' Also see Betts v. State, 493 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.1973). To paraphrase Smith v. State, supra, the summary denial of appellant's motion was equivalent to findings and conclusions in o......
-
State v. Martin, 38847
...and the trial court is not required to appoint counsel. E. g., Loflin v. State, 492 S.W.2d 770, 773 (Mo. banc 1973); Betts v. State, 493 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Mo.App.1973). Nevertheless, we urge the Supreme Court to reconsider the present construction of Rule 27.26(h). The determination by the t......