Charles v. State, KCD
| Decision Date | 30 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 573 S.W.2d 139 |
| Parties | Bruce CHARLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. 29951. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joseph R. Borich, III, Collet & Borich, Kansas City, for appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SHANGLER, P. J., SWOFFORD, C. J., and WASSERSTROM, J.
The appeal comes from denial of a Rule 27.26 motion to vacate a judgment of conviction for first degree robbery. The petition brought pro se attempted three assertions of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) failure to pursue the defense of "insanity"; (2) failure to interview all of the witnesses for the State prior to trial; and, (3) failure to raise on appeal all the points alleged on the motion for new trial.
The court refused the appointment of counsel and dismissed the Rule 27.26 petition without hearing on the findings that, the record of the robbery trial and the allegations of the motion considered, the movant had stated no ground for relief.
The movant concedes on appeal that whatever merit may be shown for his third allegation, Rule 27.26 addresses only those matters which the trial court of imposition of sentence may be competent to correct. An orderly jurisdiction requires that only a court of review may determine whether the efficacy of the judgment was lost from an act or omission of counsel in the appellate process. Hemphill v. State, 566 S.W.2d 200, 208(15, 16) (Mo. banc 1978). The third contention of the motion, therefore, does not state a cause of action for post-conviction relief under Rule 27.26.
Rule 27.26(h) provides the court shall appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner whose pleading presents questions of law or issues of fact. To the extent that the dismissal of the petition by the trial court rests on failure of a sufficient pleading, the order is clearly erroneous. The formal Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence (paragraph 8) directs that the grounds for relief shall be stated concisely. The petitioner complied by specific reference to Appendix A incorporated as a pleading. As it bears on the first allegation of incompetency of counsel, the appended narrative alleges:
Prior to trial Movant and his relatives advised the aforesaid attorney that Movant had been undergoing psychiatric care, and suggested that mental incompetency might be the proper defense, and did not make the penetrating inquiry that it deserved. That is to say, said counsel totally ignored the foregoing information.
This allegation, although not given in the most ample detail, sufficiently pleads a fact, which if true and not otherwise refuted by the files and records in the case entitles the movant to the relief he seeks. Milentz v. State, 545 S.W.2d 688, 690(1, 2) (Mo.App.1977).
The findings of the court conclude, however, that movant was not entitled to a hearing for the additional reason that, as the record discloses, at the trial movant contended he did not commit the crime and so could not, with logic, contend he was without mental capacity for the crime and that the defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility was, in any event, inconsistent with the defense of alibi submitted to the jury under the evidence and so as unavailable to the defendant as a contemporaneous submission.
A defendant in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McGautha
... ... State v. Thomas, 250 Mo. 189, 157 S.W. 330, 337(15) (1913). To that end, an accused may not be compelled to barter away a defense for an admission that he committed the criminal act. Charles v. State, 573 S.W.2d 139, 141(5, 8) (Mo.App.1978) ... We understand § 552.030.6 to mean congruently with these principles and the logic of Chapter 552 that no inculpatory statements or information given by an accused to a psychiatrist in the course of the examination on the ... ...
-
State v. Davis
...burden of proving all essential elements of a criminal offense. State v. Holland, 534 S.W.2d 258, 264 (Mo.App.1975); Charles v. State, 573 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Mo.App.1978). Further, the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution requires that a defendant be proven guilty beyond a rea......
-
State v. McKinley
...attack on the foundation of our system of criminal law since the defendant had no burden of proof on innocence. See Charles v. State, 573 S.W.2d 139, 141 (Mo.App.1978). The state's response to appellant's point on appeal The trial court did not commit plain error by not declaring a mistrial......
-
State v. Ferguson, WD
...S.W.2d 370 (Mo. banc 1981). He further cites Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976) and Charles v. State, 573 S.W.2d 139 (Mo.App.1978). Appellant contends, "Allowing a prosecutor to comment on the defendant's failure to come forth with certain evidence relie......