Hindman v. Crouch, 59832
| Decision Date | 12 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 59832,59832 |
| Citation | 560 S.W.2d 874 |
| Parties | William R. HINDMAN, Appellant, v. Clifford CROUCH, Circuit Judge and the State of Missouri, Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Downey, Jefferson City, for appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondents.
William R. Hindman, in the custody of the department of corrections following a felony conviction in the Circuit Court of Webster County on a charge of assault with intent to kill with malice, filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis during the pendency of the appeal of that conviction, alleging that the sentence was imposed in violation of his constitutional rights in that the proceedings against him were based upon a void warrant, and that the Circuit Court of Webster County lacked jurisdiction to try the charge because of fatal defects in the proceedings for change of judge and change of venue. A hearing on the petition was held at which, following oral argument the court, without hearing evidence, ruled as a matter of law against petitioner and dismissed the petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Thirteen days later the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction. State v. Hindman, 543 S.W.2d 278 (Mo.App.1976). The issues raised by the petition for a writ of error coram nobis were not ruled upon on that appeal. These issues are now before us on this appeal from the order dismissing the petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
After the filing of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis petitioner filed a motion in the Circuit Court of Webster County under Rule 27.26 to vacate and set aside the aforesaid conviction. An evidentiary hearing of the 27.26 motion is set for February 3, 1978 in the Circuit Court of Webster County. A copy of the 27.26 motion, filed in this Court by the mutual consent of counsel for both parties, demonstrates that the conviction in question is attacked on numerous grounds, including that of ineffective assistance of counsel. Although the constitutional grounds above noted are alleged inferentially in support of movant's contention that he was given ineffective assistance of counsel the 27.26 motion does not specifically allege as an independent ground of attack that the arrest warrant was void or that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to try the case.
In promulgating Rule 27.26 this Court specifically stated in paragraph (a) thereof that the rule is intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hindman v. Wyrick, 80-0709-CV-W-1.
...Missouri dismissed the coram nobis petition, granting petitioner leave to file an amended motion in the Rule 27.26 proceeding. Hindman v. Crouch, 560 S.W.2d 874 (Mo. banc On November 2, 1978, after an extensive evidentiary hearing in which petitioner was represented by counsel, see Responde......
-
Eaton v. State
...commensurate with the remedy of Rule 27.26, with the difference that the latter is available only to one who is incarcerated. Hindman v. Crouch, 560 S.W.2d 874, 875 (Mo. banc 1978); Laster v. State,461 S.W.2d 839 (Mo.1971); State v. Stodulski, supra. Should the conviction be found to have b......
-
Hicks v. Wyrick
...which reject efforts to invoke State court postconviction remedies other than those provided in Missouri Rule 27.26. In Hindman v. Crouch, 560 S.W.2d 874, for example, the Supreme Court of Missouri en banc required the petitioner to proceed under Missouri Rule 27.26 rather than by petition ......
-
Clifford v. White, 83-0225-CV-W-1.
...Rule 27.26 procedure is generally adequate to provide all relief previously available by way of habeas corpus. See Hindman v. Crouch, 560 S.W.2d 874 (Mo.1978) (en banc); Wiglesworth v. Wyrick, 531 S.W.2d 713 (Mo. 1976) (en banc). The Supreme Court of Missouri's summary denial of petitioner'......