Caffey v. State, No. 55535

CourtMissouri Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHOLMAN
Citation467 S.W.2d 857
PartiesJack Virgil CAFFEY, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Decision Date14 June 1971
Docket NumberNo. 55535,No. 1

Page 857

467 S.W.2d 857
Jack Virgil CAFFEY, Movant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 55535.
Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
June 14, 1971.

Wm. Clark Kelly, Springfield, for appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Gene E. Voigts, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Page 858

HOLMAN, Judge.

Movant (hereinafter referred to as defendant) has appealed from an order of the circuit court, made without an evidentiary hearing, overruling his motion to vacate filed pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R.

At a trial by jury defendant was convicted of burglary, second degree, and stealing and was sentenced by the court to imprisonment for terms of four and two years, respectively, the sentences to run consecutively. He appealed and this court affirmed. State v. Caffey, 404 S.W.2d 171. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to vacate which was overruled after an evidentiary hearing. That ruling was also affirmed on appeal. Caffey v. State, Mo., 441 S.W.2d 681.

The grounds alleged in defendant's second motion to vacate are: '(a) Denial of right of confrontation of witnesses in violation of 6th and 14th Amendments; (b) denial of right to prepare defense in secret in violation of due process and equal protection clauses of 14th Amendment; (c) denial of the right to a full and fair evidentiary hearing on the issue set out in (a) above at the previous hearing under Rule 27.26 in violation of due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment; and (d) denial of the assistance of counsel under the 6th and 14th Amendments in connection with the grounds set out in (c) above.' There are actually only two grounds, as (c) and (d) both relate to ground (a).

A portion of the factual statement on original appeal is quoted as follows:

'In the early morning hours of January 9, 1965, at about 12:30 a.m., the defendant was found crouched or hunkered down behind a desk in the cashier's office of the Teamsters Union Hall, Local 245, in Springfield, Missouri, by Carl Page and Bob Kirk, assistant business representative and organizer, respectively, of the Union. * * * Defendant is not a member of the local Union and had no authority to be in the building. One of them ordered the defendant to stand up with his hands above his head. While Page was using the telephone to call one of the officers of the Union, defendant attempted to escape. A scuffle ensued and he was subdued in the hallway by Page and Kirk. The police arrived within a few minutes and defendant was placed under arrest. He was searched and approximately $20 in currency and change, a pocket knife, a pair of gloves, and two hard-steel instruments later identified as capable of being used effectively as lockpicks were found on his person. * * *

'Detective Paul Jones of the Springfield Police Department testified that on Wednesday afternoon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • McCrary v. State, No. 36400
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 1975
    .... . " Sweazea v. State, supra, 515 S.W.2d at 501, quoting from Gailes v. State, 454 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Mo.1970); see also Caffey v. State, 467 S.W.2d 857, 859 The claim of illegal search and seizure was raised on direct appeal and decided adversely to the movant. State v. McCrary, supra. Ther......
  • Wilwording v. Swenson, Civ. A. No. 73CV55-W-3.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • October 19, 1973
    ...asserted at the time of the filing and hearing of the first motion. Johnson v. State, Mo.Sup., 472 S.W.2d 433; Caffey v. State, Mo.Sup., 467 S.W.2d 857.' Nolan v. State, Mo.Sup., 484 S.W.2d 273, 274." Wilwording v. State of Missouri, supra at As indicated by the above discussion, an issue t......
  • Newman v. State, No. 56846
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1972
    ...or dismissed, because Rule 27.26(c) says: 'The motion shall include every ground known to the prisoner.' See Caffey v. State, Mo.Sup., 467 S.W.2d 857, Grounds (a) and (b) of the present motion may not be entirely the same as those raised on the previous withdrawn motion as argued by the Sta......
  • Donaldson v. State, No. 9295
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 3, 1973
    ...or dismissed, because Rule 27.26(c) says: 'The motion shall include every ground known to the prisoner.' See Caffey v. State, Mo.Sup., 467 S.W.2d 857, In an effort to avoid the limiting language of Rule 27.26(c), (d), appellant alleged in the present motion that he was not aware of the pres......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • McCrary v. State, No. 36400
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 23, 1975
    .... . " Sweazea v. State, supra, 515 S.W.2d at 501, quoting from Gailes v. State, 454 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Mo.1970); see also Caffey v. State, 467 S.W.2d 857, 859 The claim of illegal search and seizure was raised on direct appeal and decided adversely to the movant. State v. McCrary, supra. Ther......
  • Wilwording v. Swenson, Civ. A. No. 73CV55-W-3.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Missouri
    • October 19, 1973
    ...asserted at the time of the filing and hearing of the first motion. Johnson v. State, Mo.Sup., 472 S.W.2d 433; Caffey v. State, Mo.Sup., 467 S.W.2d 857.' Nolan v. State, Mo.Sup., 484 S.W.2d 273, 274." Wilwording v. State of Missouri, supra at As indicated by the above discussion, an issue t......
  • Newman v. State, No. 56846
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 12, 1972
    ...or dismissed, because Rule 27.26(c) says: 'The motion shall include every ground known to the prisoner.' See Caffey v. State, Mo.Sup., 467 S.W.2d 857, Grounds (a) and (b) of the present motion may not be entirely the same as those raised on the previous withdrawn motion as argued by the Sta......
  • Donaldson v. State, No. 9295
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 3, 1973
    ...or dismissed, because Rule 27.26(c) says: 'The motion shall include every ground known to the prisoner.' See Caffey v. State, Mo.Sup., 467 S.W.2d 857, In an effort to avoid the limiting language of Rule 27.26(c), (d), appellant alleged in the present motion that he was not aware of the pres......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT