Harrod v. State, 9667

Decision Date19 August 1974
Docket NumberNo. 9667,9667
Citation513 S.W.2d 471
PartiesRobert Dean HARROD, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Philip M. Moomaw, Dan L. Birdsong, Rolla, for movant-appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

The sufficiency of the complaint, verification of the information, and sufficiency of the trial evidence, are not subject to attack in Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., proceedings. The judgment of the Pulaski County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16, V.A.M.R.

All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Achter v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 1976
    ...appeal; neither may it be employed as a second appeal, nor be used to challenge the sufficiency of all the evidence. Harrod v. State, 513 S.W.2d 471 (Mo.App.1974). Through subparagraph (c) of his motion, movant asserts he was denied his right to have compulsory process for obtaining witness......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT