Grayse v. State, 17519
| Decision Date | 09 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 17519,17519 |
| Parties | Charles G. GRAYSE, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Fleming, Columbia, for movant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant entered a plea of guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to twenty-two years' imprisonment. Thereafter he filed pro se a motion under Rule 24.035 seeking to vacate the conviction and sentence. An attorney was appointed for him and a timely amended motion and request for hearing were made.
The trial court made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and entered judgment denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant appeals. Appellate review of such a motion is limited to determining whether the findings and conclusions of the trial court were clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j).
Movant contends that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing because he pleaded facts showing that the attorneys who represented him provided him with ineffective assistance of counsel. He states that the attorney who initially represented him "failed to fully inform appellant of his options, failed to investigate appellant's defenses and evidence in mitigation, and misleadingly advised appellant of the probability of a lenient sentence".
Movant states the attorney who appeared with him for sentencing following his plea of guilty "did not provide appellant independent and zealous representation, under the circumstances of the case, in that he failed to advise appellant of other alternatives to maintaining his plea, and failed to provide appellant independent advice regarding the probability of a lenient sentence if his plea of guilty were maintained".
Under Rule 24.035(g) "if the motion and the files and record of the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief, a hearing shall not be held." Pursuant to this provision the trial court determined that the "facts" alleged were refuted by the files and records in the case.
A motion for postconviction relief claiming that an attorney's investigation was inadequate must specifically allege what information the attorney failed to discover, that a reasonable investigation would have disclosed that information, and that the information would have improved movant's position. Blackmon v. State, 767 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Mo.App.1989). Failure to make specific allegations regarding such information renders the motion subject to denial without an evidentiary hearing because it fails to allege facts which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. State, 63499
...claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is material only to the extent it affects the voluntariness of his plea. Grayse v. State, 817 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Mo.App.1991). To succeed on a claim of lack of investigation, Defendant must allege what information his attorney failed to discover, a r......
-
Payne v. State, 63241
...investigation would have disclosed the information, and that the information would have improved the movant's position. Grayse v. State, 817 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Mo.App.1991). Movant has made no such allegations. Further, this claim is refuted by movant's responses at the plea Movant's second a......
-
Minner v. State, 19545
...subject to denial without an evidentiary hearing because it fails to allege facts which entitle movant to relief. Grayse v. State, 817 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Mo.App.S.D.1991). This allegation is also refuted by the record. Movant signed a "Petition To Enter Plea of Guilty" and, at the time he ent......
-
January v. State, 67386
...investigation would have disclosed that information, and that the information would have aided movant's position. Grayse v. State, 817 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Mo.App.1991). Failure to make specific allegations render the motion subject to denial without a hearing. Id. January failed to make specif......