Dill v. State
| Decision Date | 02 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 525 S.W.2d 437 |
| Parties | Charles Patrick DILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. 27411. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Willard B. Bunch, Public Defender, James W. Fletcher, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Robert M. Sommers, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and TURNAGE, J.
Charles Patrick Dill withdrew his plea of not guilty to burglary second degree and stealing, and entered a plea of guilty prior to the beginning of trial. He was thereafter sentenced to five years confinement for the burglary and three years for stealing, with such sentences to run consecutively.
Appellant now appeals from the refusal of the circuit court to allow him to withdraw his plea of guilty and to set aside the judgment and sentence as requested in his motion under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R.
In addition to the transcript of the evidentiary hearing conducted by the court on appellant's motion, the parties stipulated that the transcript of the hearing at which the guilty plea was entered would be considered in ruling on appellant's motion. In his motion appellant alleged that his plea of guilty had not been entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily; that the court had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 25.04 in accepting his guilty plea; and at the time he entered his guilty plea he was under the influence of drugs and he was, therefore, unable to voluntarily enter a plea of guilty.
On this appeal, appellant urges that his guilty plea was not made voluntarily and with understanding of the nature of the charges or the consequences of the plea. He further contends he was under the influence of narcotics at the time he entered his plea.
At the evidentiary hearing, the appellant testified that he had 'shot' drugs on the night prior to his appearance in court and in fact 'shot' again immediately prior to entering the courtroom. He denied being able to remember anything of the proceedings except for the fact he had appeared in court. Appellant also called as a witness Richard Beitling, one of the two attorneys who appeared with appellant on the morning he entered his plea of guilty. Mr. Beitling testified he knew appellant was a user of narcotics and testified that on the morning of the court appearance the appellant appeared the same to him as he had on each of the other occasions when he had seen him. He described his condition as being, in his opinion, similar to that of a person who had been using narcotics. However, Mr. Beitling would not give his opinion that appellant was under the influence of narcotics at the time the plea was entered. The State called Charles Gallipeau, the other attorney who appeared with appellant at the guilty plea. Mr. Gallipeau stated in his opinion appellant did understand what...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, 36170
...appeal to a determination of whether the findings, conclusions and judgment of the trial court are clearly erroneous. Dill v. State, 525 S.W.2d 437 (Mo.App.1975); Slankard v. State, 525 S.W.2d 101 (Mo.App.1975). There was no clear error here by the trial court. The only evidence in support ......
-
Turnbough v. State, 36313
...determination of whether the findings, conclusions and judgment of the trial court are clearly erroneous.' Rule 27.26(j). Dill v. State, 525 S.W.2d 437 (Mo.App.1975); Slankard v. State, 525 S.W.2d 101 The point relied on attacks no finding, judgment or conclusion of the court which heard th......
-
Jones v. State, 10628
...clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j); Schleicher v. State, 483 S.W.2d 393, 394 (Mo. banc 1972), (Finch, C. J., concurring); Dill v. State, 525 S.W.2d 437, 439 (Mo.App.1975). Movant's claim that he did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his Miranda rights was not raised by motion or ob......
-
McLarty v. State, 36653
...findings or conclusions are clearly erroneous. See Turnbough v. State, 533 S.W.2d 609, St. Louis Court of Appeals, 1975; Dill v. State, 525 S.W.2d 437 (Mo.App.1975). This fault is prevalent in most of the briefs which we receive on appeals from judgments with respect to motions filed under ......