Evans v. State, 55794
| Decision Date | 12 April 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 55794,55794,1 |
| Citation | 465 S.W.2d 500 |
| Parties | R. D. EVANS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
John A. Eigel, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Appeal from denial of relief without hearing on motion under Supreme Court Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., to set aside judgment and conviction.
Appellant, R. D. Evans, was found guilty of murder in the first degree by a jury in the St. Louis Circuit Court and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed to this Court which affirmed the conviction. State v. Evans, 439 S.W.2d 170. The sole ground for relief on the appeal was 'that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence his confession, given at a time when he was without counsel and when he says he was not properly warned of his rights as to counsel.' 439 S.W.2d 170. This Court found that appellant's statement had been the product of in custody interrogation, without adequate warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. The Court found, however, that the trial court had not erred in admitting the statement because appellant's trial counsel had not made a specific objection based on Miranda grounds.
Without assistance of counsel, appellant filed a motion under Supreme Court Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., in which he alleged:
'(a) The conviction and sentence under which movant is being detained was imposed in violation of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that movant was deprived of his right to counsel during in custody interrogation.
'(b) The conviction and sentence under which movant is being detained was imposed in violation of the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that movant was compelled to be a witness against himself by the admission into evidence at his trial of involuntary statements made by him while in custody.'
The facts alleged in support of each respective ground are as follows:
'(a) On or about May 15, 1966, the defendant-movant, while in custody, was interrogated in connection with the alleged offenses of 'arson and homicide.'
'The defendant was not advised of his constitutional rights as set forth by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436. (86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694) In particular, defendant was not advised prior to questioning that (1) he had a right to remain silent; (2) that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law; (3) that he had the right to the presence of an attorney prior to and during any interrogation; (4) that if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed, prior to any interrogation if he (defendant-accused) wished and the attorney would be devoted to the defendant's cause.
'The defendant was not advised of his rights as set out above; he did not otherwise know of these rights; he did not waive these rights.
On November 20, 1969, the circuit court, Honorable Ivan Lee Holt, Jr., Judge, denied the motion without a hearing or the appointment of an attorney for the reason that 'the grounds set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 thereof were ruled adversely to the defendant by the Supreme Court of Missouri on his appeal in State of Missouri v. R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Swenson
...November 20, 1969. Petitioner appealed this decision and it was affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court on April 12, 1971 (Evans v. State, 465 S.W.2d 500 (Mo., 1971)). Petitioner's sole contention on appeal from the conviction was that the trial court had erroneously admitted into evidence h......
-
Evans v. Swenson, 71-1527.
...Appellant appealed the trial court's order denying such relief, and the order was affirmed by the Missouri Supreme Court (Evans v. State, 465 S.W.2d 500 (Mo., 1971)). In his petition for writ of habeas corpus appellant contends (1) that his conviction and sentence were imposed in violation ......
-
State v. Bridges
...reconsideration we reach the same conclusions arrived at on the first appeal, for the same reasons. In this connection see Evans v. State, Mo.Sup., 465 S.W.2d 500, 502, and cases cited Keynote 2; State v. Tettamble, Mo.Sup., 450 S.W.2d 191, 192(1). It may be taken as established in this cas......
-
Riley v. State, 56406
...Caffey v. State, Mo.Sup., 441 S.W.2d 681, 682(2), quoted in Morton v. State, Mo.Sup., 468 S.W.2d 638, 639(1). See also Evans v. State, Mo.Sup., 465 S.W.2d 500; State v. Brown, Mo.Sup., 461 S.W.2d 743; Keeny v. State, Mo.Sup., 461 S.W.2d 731; Malone v. State, Mo.Sup., 461 S.W.2d 727; Gailes ......