Boyet v. State, 47385
| Decision Date | 22 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 47385,47385 |
| Citation | 671 S.W.2d 417 |
| Parties | John Wayne BOYET, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Lenzie L. Leftridge, Jr., Flat River, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant appeals the trial court's denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Movant's conviction for rape was affirmed in State v. Boyet, 620 S.W.2d 439 (Mo.App.1981). He then sought to vacate the conviction by alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and the discovery of new evidence. He now complains about the denial of an evidentiary hearing.
Movant alleges his trial attorney was ineffective for refusing to object "to hearsay testimony of allege telephone conversation; counsel refused to call witness for defendant." Nothing further is alleged. We find movant has not met his burden of stating facts to substantiate his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Tollison v. State, 556 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Mo.App.1977). Thus, no hearing was required for this allegation.
Movant also alleges counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness movant himself was not aware of until after trial. To be effective, counsel need not be clairvoyant. This allegation is completely lacking in merit.
Movant claims he now has evidence his victim's husband offered her sexual services to someone else in exchange for money. Movant does not allege how this evidence would have affected the outcome of his trial. Robinson v. State, 643 S.W.2d 8 (Mo.1982). See also, § 491.015, RSMo 1978.
The motion on its face conclusively shows movant not to be entitled to relief. Rule 27.26(e). The trial court therefore did not err in denying it without an evidentiary hearing.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boggs v. State
...Where Movant fails to allege the grounds and basis for the objection, no evidentiary hearing is required. See, e.g., Boyet v. State, 671 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.App.1984); Wilson v. State, 643 S.W.2d 6 (Mo.App.1982). This Court further notes that the transcript of trial and the transcript of the sup......
-
McDonald v. State, 52757
...facts. Counsel need not be clairvoyant to be effective, she can only do what is reasonable under the circumstances. Boyet v. State, 671 S.W.2d 417, 418 (Mo.App.1984). Counsel asked for psychiatric examinations even though she had no evidence of mental disease or defect. Until January 1982 s......
-
Frazier v. State, 15015
...have them stricken from the transcript. Nowhere does Allegation 2 identify the offending statements or the witnesses. In Boyet v. State, 671 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.App.1984), a prisoner seeking post-conviction relief alleged his trial attorney was ineffective for refusing to object "to hearsay test......
-
Battle v. State, 47158
...be effective and cannot be held responsible for failing to act on information he was not privy to at the time of trial. Boyet v. Missouri, 671 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.App.1984). Point Finally, movant argues that the trial court erred in finding him competent to stand trial. This point is also denied......