Cammann v. State, 56486
| Decision Date | 13 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 56486,56486 |
| Citation | 785 S.W.2d 763 |
| Parties | Donald CAMMANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James S. McKay, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Andrea K. Spillars, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant pled guilty to robbery in the second degree on August 4, 1986. Movant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment to be served concurrently with a seven year sentence previously imposed in another cause.
On June 16, 1988 movant filed a pro se motion pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035. Thereafter, counsel filed an amended motion on September 22, 1988 alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Arnold Dickerson, a "known witness," and failing to explain to movant both the nature of the charge and the criminal process. On February 23, 1989 the motion court denied movant's claim without holding an evidentiary hearing. Movant now appeals. We affirm.
Movant's sole point on appeal asserts: The motion court erred in denying the 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing, since an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine the effectiveness of trial counsel's failure to contact a known witness, which claim if true, would not clearly refute movant's guilty plea record.
Appellate court's review of the motion court's denial of post conviction relief is limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 24.035(j). The motion court's findings and conclusions are deemed clearly erroneous only if, after review of the entire record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo.1989) citing Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo.1987).
The motion court's findings of fact, conclusions and order denying post-conviction relief is based on the ground that movant's guilty plea was voluntarily made, after understanding the nature of the charge. In addition, movant's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel is refuted by the record, and without merit.
To succeed on a claim for an evidentiary hearing, movant must satisfy three requirements: 1) he must have alleged facts, not conclusions which if true would warrant relief; 2) the allegations of fact must not be refuted by the record; and 3) the matters complained of must have resulted in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belcher v. State, 57854
...of the entire record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Cammann v. State, 785 S.W.2d 763 (Mo.App.1990), State v. Ryun, 784 S.W.2d 636, 639 Movant's motion to withdraw his plea was denied by the sentencing court on June 16, 1989. ......
-
State v. Spicuzza
...that in order to receive an evidentiary hearing a post-conviction motion must allege facts rather than conclusions. Cammann v. State, 785 S.W.2d 763, 764 (Mo.App.1990). But we also recognize that a movant should be afforded an opportunity to fully present his claims and Rule 29.15 furthers ......
-
Balow v. State, 57977
...be refuted by the record; and (3) the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the movant's defense. Camman v. State, 785 S.W.2d 763, 764 (Mo.App.1990). Movant alleges four bases for his contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, but his mere conclusions ......
-
Recklein v. State
...not be refuted by the record; and the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the movant's defense. Cammann v. State, 785 S.W.2d 763, 764 (Mo.App.1990). Movant alleges that his plea counsel threatened and coerced him into pleading guilty and that two individuals, one a memb......