Hatfield v. State, KCD
Citation | 529 S.W.2d 180 |
Decision Date | 06 October 1975 |
Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
Parties | George HATFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. 27672. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Joe Hamilton Scott, Public Defender, St. Joseph, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Nowotny, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and TURNAGE, J.
Appellant was originally found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment on April 13, 1970. He appealed from that conviction unsuccessfully, State v. Hatfield, 465 S.W.2d 468 (Mo.1971). He then filed his first motion to vacate or set aside sentence which was ruled against him, Hatfield v. State, 487 S.W.2d 574 (Mo.1972). Subsequently, he filed his second motion to vacate, set aside, or correct judgment of conviction pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 27.26, the one now considered, in which he alleged that he has discovered new evidence (supported by affidavits) which, if found to be true, would demonstrate that in taking the life of his victim he (appellant), either (a) acted in self-defense or (2) was guilty of no greater offense that that of manslaughter; and that because of this newly discovered evidence he is entitled to a new trial.
In response to this second motion to vacate, the State filed a motion to deny applicant's motion to set aside or correct judgment which was sustained by the court below, without hearing, on the basis that allegations of newly discovered evidence 'are not grounds for relief under Supreme Court Rule 27.26 or by Error Coram Nobis.'
On this appeal the appellant claims that he is entitled to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, or, 'at least' a hearing on his motion to vacate sentence.
Appellant cites no Missouri cases in support of his position that newly discovered evidence provides a basis for relief under Rule 27.26 ( ). To the contrary, appellant states that he 'is aware that there is precedent for the proposition that newly discovered evidence is not cognizable in a motion to vacate sentence under Rule 27.26 * * *', citing Beishir v. State, 480 S.W.2d 883 (Mo.1972).
In Beishir the appellant had filed a 27.26 motion in which he claimed the discovery of new evidence which allegedly demonstrated that two men, since deceased, had admitted that they, rather than Beishir and Beishir's co-defendant, had participated in the robbery for which Beishir had been convicted. The lower court conducted a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Byrd v. Armontrout
...banc 1980); Turnbough v. State, 574 S.W.2d 400, 404 (Mo. banc 1978); Beishir v. State, 480 S.W.2d 883 (Mo.1972); Hatfield v. State, 529 S.W.2d 180, 181-182 (Mo.App.1975). Therefore, in November, 1986, prior to the repeal of Rule 27.26, petitioner could not obtain relief based upon his newly......
-
Jackson v. State
...is true in the instant case, represent classic examples of motions properly determinable without evidentiary hearings. Hatfield v. State, 529 S.W.2d 180 (Mo.App.1975); and Meeks v. State, 512 S.W.2d 215 The three "grounds" and supportive "facts" alluded to, substantially condensed for sake ......
-
State v. Mooney
...of error coram nobis. Beishir v. State, 480 S.W.2d 883 (Mo.1972); State v. Cerny, 365 Mo. 732, 286 S.W.2d 804 (1956); Hatfield v. State, 529 S.W.2d 180 (Mo.App.1975). We are of the opinion that in a case of this kind appellant must have some forum in the judicial system to present this issu......
-
Westmoreland v. State, 61213
...However, a proceeding under Rule 27.26 is not the proper vehicle for relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Hatfield v. State, 529 S.W.2d 180, 181 (Mo.App.1975). Beishir v. State, 480 S.W.2d 883, 885 The balance of movant's first 27.26 motion related to the fact that a witness ha......