Fritz v. State
Decision Date | 12 January 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 54374,54374,1 |
Citation | 449 S.W.2d 174 |
Parties | Leon Claude FRITZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
J. Arnot Hill, The Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Gene E. Voigts, First Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., for respondent.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Appeal from denial, after hearing, of motion, under Criminal Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., to set aside judgment of conviction of burglary, second degree.
Leon Claude Fritz, charged with burglary, first degree, and as a second offender, was convicted by a jury of burglary, second degree; he was sentenced to 10-years' imprisonment, and the judgment was affirmed upon appeal. State v. Fritz, Mo., 379 S.W.2d 589, and see also State v. Fritz, Mo., 429 S.W.2d 699, for a previous Rule 27.26 proceeding.
On April 15, 1967, Leon Claude Fritz, pro se, filed a motion under Rule 27.26. On April 20, 1967, the court permitted him to proceed in forma pauperis and appointed Mr. J. Arnot Hill of the public defender's office to represent movant.
The transcript in the previous Rule 27.26 proceeding shows the pro se motion to have contained five grounds:
1. The trial court erred in overruling defendant's objection to trial on May 28, 1963, upon the grounds of insufficient notice of amendment of the information and complaint under the Habitual Criminal Act.
2. The court erred in overruling defendant's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the end of the state's case for the reason that the evidence offered by the state was insufficient, because the state's principal witnesses, Officers Andrews and Arnold, were not competent 'under the following point.'
3. The evidence was not sufficient to sustain a conviction of burglary, first degree, and was not sufficient to sustain the conviction of burglary, second degree.
4. The court erred in submitting burglary, second degree, under a charge of burglary, first degree.
5. Defendant was denied due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because 'the evidence shows that the defendant is guilty of only one crime, and that is to be a Negro at, or near the scene of an alleged crime where a supposed white female had been attacked by a male.'
Subsequent to the filing of the pro se motion the trial court noted the order of the supreme court in State v. Stidham, Mo., 415 S.W.2d 297, and instructed Mr. Hill to have petitioner file an amended motion using the form prescribed by Criminal Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., which required the movant to include 'every ground known to him for vacating, setting aside or correcting his conviction and sentence or it will be waived or abandoned.' The amended motion was filed August 11, 1967, and State v. Fritz, supra, at 429 S.W.2d l.c. 700, shows the amended motion to be virtually the same as the pro se motion in stating as grounds for relief in paragraph 8:
'(a) The Trial Court erred in overruling Defendant's objection to Trial on May 28, 1963, upon the grounds of insufficient notice to defendant of the Amendment.
'(b) That the Court erred in overruling defendant's 'Motion for Judgment of Acquittal'
'(c) The evidence was not sufficient to Sustain defendant's conviction of Burglary in the Second Degree.
'(d) Defendant was denied Due Process of Law as Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Article of the Constitution of the U.S.'
Movant represented that these grounds would be proved by attached exhibits but such were neither attached nor offered and they were not included in the transcript.
This amended motion was denied without a hearing and, upon appeal, this court set aside the order denying relief and remanded the case to permit filing of another amended motion and further proceedings. State v. Fritz, supra, 429 S.W.2d l.c. 701--702.
On October 17, 1968, pursuant to the remand, movant filed his 'Supplemental Motion in connection with the Rule 27.26 motion now pending' in which he stated:
'1 Movant incorporates by reference all the averments contained in his original motion * * * of April 1967 * * *:
'(A) * * * The only issue herein taken is the one of obtaining jail time prior to trial * * *.'
'(C) That if not allowed, 'he will in fact be serving more than the legal maximum punishment allowed under the Statute * * *' contrary to law.
'(F) Movant should receive credit for the 207 days he spent in jail awaiting trial * * *.'
An evidentiary hearing was accorded movant November 15, 1968, at which time he continued to be represented by Mr. Hill. The only evidence presented was the testimony of movant. He testified to his conviction and 10-year sentence; 207 days spent in jail prior to trial; that by information received by him from the United States Weather Bureau one of the officers who testified for the state perjured himself when he said he saw the defendant at the crime site 'by the light of the full moon' because his weather bureau exhibit showed that the moon did not rise that night; that he should have had a continuance when the amended information was filed due to insufficient notice; that he should have had an acquittal because the evidence was not sufficient to sustain his conviction; that he was denied due process ; that his pleadings contained all his complaints and grounds for relief; that at trial he was represented by hired counsel of his own choosing, Mr. William Costello, and that he cross-examined state's witnesses, particularly the 'white woman who was the complaining witness'; that he was shot by the police in the vicinity and that is how they found him there.
On November 18, 1968, the court entered an order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which relief was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gray v. State
...States.' Schleicher v. State, 483 S.W.2d 393, 394(2) (Mo. banc 1972); Maggard v. State, 471 S.W.2d 161, 162(1) (Mo.1971); Fritz v. State, 449 S.W.2d 174, 177 (Mo.1970). Of (A). Actually, the above-quoted statement (A), with which we are in complete agreement, does not reflect appellant's co......
-
Greene v. State, WD
...respect. Atkins v. State, 549 S.W.2d 927, 931 (Mo.App.1977); Baker v. State, 583 S.W.2d 190, 191 (Mo.App.1979); and see Fritz v. State, 449 S.W.2d 174, 177 (Mo.1970). As to the first point, ground (4) of the motion, the facts are these: The indictments in each case charged that appellant, o......
-
Cheek v. State, 54810
...in defendant's motion to vacate, was not considered by the trial court, and may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Fritz v. State, Mo.Sup., 449 S.W.2d 174; Harris v. State, Mo.Sup., 443 S.W.2d 191(2); State v. Hegwood, Mo.Sup., 415 S.W.2d The remaining contention is that 'the trial......
-
Maggard v. State
...for the reason that they were not raised in the motions filed in the circuit court and are presented for the first time here. Fritz v. State, Mo., 449 S.W.2d 174; State v. Eaton, Mo., 394 S.W.2d Following the evidentiary hearing on appellant's Rule 27.26 motion the court made findings of fa......