Haynes v. State, 38939

Decision Date24 January 1978
Docket NumberNo. 38939,38939
Citation561 S.W.2d 450
PartiesJames Curtis HAYNES, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. . Louis District, Division One
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Robert C. Babione, Public Defender, James B. Ashwell, Robert O'Blennis, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.

John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, John M. Morris, J. Michael Davis, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., Nels C. Moss, Jr., Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.

SMITH, Judge.

Movant appeals from the action of the trial court in denying his motion to set aside judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Rule 27.26. Movant was tried and convicted of murder, first degree, and attempted robbery in 1973 and sentenced to life imprisonment and five years imprisonment. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Haynes, 510 S.W.2d 423 (Mo.1974).

In his motion Haynes alleged (1) ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) error in the trial instructions, (3) insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and (4) prejudicial argument by the prosecutor. Following an evidentiary hearing at which movant presented evidence only as to ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court denied his motion. On appeal Haynes raises two points, i. e.: (1) the court erred in its finding that movant had failed to carry his burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) that the court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the other three grounds alleged in his motion.

Our review of the record convinces us that the court's finding on the counsel question was supported by the evidence. The court did not "credit movant's testimony." It found that movant's attorney "made effective preparation for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • McDonald v. State, 52757
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 26, 1988
    ...evidence or on claims not cognizable in a 27.26 proceeding. Gawne v. State, 729 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Mo.App.1987); Haynes v. State, 561 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Mo.App.1978). As to the first claim, we are unable to fault the hearing court since there was no evidence presented on this claim. There is no......
  • Johnson v. State, s. 42648
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 3, 1981
    ...to make findings of fact on issues not presented at the hearing is not error. Fowler, supra at 250(1, 2) n. 2. Haynes v. State, 561 S.W.2d 450, 451(2) (Mo.App.1978). Movant presented only his own testimony and it made no reference to the claims in his motion that counsel failed to advise hi......
  • Pointer v. State, 44155
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 14, 1982
    ...evidence in support thereof was adduced at movant's hearing and so no specific findings and conclusions were required. Haynes v. State, 561 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Mo.App.1978). Movant's main point asserts the involuntariness of his guilty pleas under the since-repealed Rule 25.04, which provided ......
  • Hudson v. State, 42151
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 23, 1980
    ...not required to make specific findings and conclusions concerning allegations not cognizable in a 27.26 proceeding. Haynes v. State, 561 S.W.2d 450, 451(2) (Mo.App.1978). The judgment of the trial court is PUDLOWSKI, P. J., and GUNN, J., concur. 1 Both sections were repealed by laws of Miss......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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