Grant v. State, 57195
| Decision Date | 13 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 57195,No. 1,57195,1 |
| Citation | 486 S.W.2d 641 |
| Parties | Freddie Lee GRANT, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Linus E. Young, Portageville, for movant-appellant; Guy F. Brown, Inmate Legal Counselor, Jefferson City, on brief for Freddie L. Grant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Wieler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Appeal (filed prior to January 1, 1972) from denial, without hearing, of proceeding under Supreme Court Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., for relief from 99-year sentence on jury verdict of guilty on charge of forcible rape.
On June 13, 1962, a jury in the New Madrid County Circuit Court found Freddie Lee Grant guilty of forcible rape. Acting under the Second Offender Act, the trial court immediately pronounced sentence of 99 years and judgment was entered. Because judgment had been entered prior to the time granted defendant for filing a motion for new trial, this court in an opinion delivered July 13, 1964, in a proceeding under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., set aside the judgment, remanded the case for consideration of the defendant's motion for new trial and for entry of a new judgment. State v. Grant, Mo., 380 S.W.2d 799. The court in that case rejected a claim of errors violating the appellant's constitutional rights. 380 S.W.2d 803--804(9).
After his motion for new trial was overruled upon the remand and following resentencing to a term of 99 years, a direct appeal from the conviction was filed in this court. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. State v. Grant, Mo., 394 S.W.2d 285. All of the appellant's claims of trial error were rejected. None was based upon constitutional grounds.
In 1968, appellant filed a motion under amended Supreme Court Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., in the New Madrid County Circuit Court. The ground of the motion was that his identification by the victim was the result of an unnecessarily suggestive confrontation which violated the requirements of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A hearing was held on the motion with the movant present and represented by counsel. The trial court rejected the claim for relief. This court affirmed on appeal. Grant v. State, Mo., 446 S.W.2d 620.
On July 8, 1971, appellant filed in the New Madrid County Circuit Court the motion under Supreme Court Rule 27.26 V.A.M.R., which is the subject of the present appeal. Attacking the same conviction, it alleges six grounds for relief, summarized in the motion as follows:
'* * * (T)his petitioner was: suspiciously arrested, held incommunicado for five days, and was placed in a sweat-box torture chamber . . . the application of the Second Offender Act was in violation of movant's right to due process . . . the Judge of the Magistrate Court unnecessarily granted continuances in movant's case . . . movant did not have a preliminary hearing and he did not knowingly and understandingly waive same . . . movant was not afforded a speedy trial as he was held in jail for over 19 months with a bond . . . and movant was not afforded the effective assistance of counsel during or in the preliminary stages of his trial as is constitutionally required, * * *.'
In explanation for the failure to include such grounds upon prior motions, the motion in this case states:
Without a hearing, the trial court overruled the motion for the reason that 'the grounds presented by * * * the motion to vacate sentence and judgment * * * could have been raised in the prior motion pursuant to the provisions of subsection (c) of Supreme Court Rule 27.26.'
Supreme ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fields v. State
...by proof, would authorize a finding that he could not previously have presented these new grounds. Relying further upon Grant v. State, 486 S.W.2d 641, 643-44 (Mo.1972), the court of appeals held that the bare allegation of "lack of legal knowledge" is insufficient to authorize a finding th......
-
Futrell v. State
...could have been raised in the first is not clearly erroneous. Dismissal without an evidentiary hearing was warranted, see Grant v. State, 486 S.W.2d 641 (Mo.1972), and the judgment is WELLIVER, GUNN, BILLINGS, BLACKMAR and DONNELLY, JJ., concur. HIGGINS, J., dissents in separate opinion fil......
-
Webb v. State, WD
...decided is tantamount to a frequently employed excuse-lack of legal knowledge-which has been repudiated time and time again. Grant v. State, 486 S.W.2d 641 (Mo.1972); Wright v. State, 614 S.W.2d 325 (Mo.App.1981); Burnside v. State, 600 S.W.2d 157 (Mo.App.1980); Wallace v. State, 589 S.W.2d......
-
Wright v. State, WD
...knowledge has been repudiated as a cognizable excuse for not raising an ostensibly new ground in a prior Rule 27.26 motion. Grant v. State, 486 S.W.2d 641 (Mo.1972); Burnside v. State, 600 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Mo.App.1980); Wallace v. State, supra; Brager v. State, 586 S.W.2d 397 (Mo.App.1979);......