Lyle v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 617 S.W.2d 403 |
| Parties | Robert LYLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. 31128. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joe D. Willerth, Cochran, Kramer, Kapke & Willerth, Independence, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Darrell Panethiere, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.
Before PRITCHARD, P. J., and TURNAGE and CLARK, JJ.
Robert Lyle was convicted of murder in the first degree by the court sitting without a jury. On appeal the conviction was affirmed. State v. Lyle, 511 S.W.2d 817 (Mo.1974). Lyle filed a motion under Rule 27.26 seeking to vacate that conviction. The court overruled the motion and Lyle appeals.
Lyle contends the court erred in finding his confession was voluntary, that he knowingly waived a jury trial and that his attorney was not ineffective. Affirmed.
Lyle was arrested in Kansas City, Kansas, waived extradition and was brought to Kansas City, Missouri. While in custody, and after consulting with his Kansas attorney, Lyle gave a statement to the Kansas City, Missouri Police admitting that he had killed Joetha Lewis. The sole point in the appeal of his conviction was that his confession was involuntary because it was given in return for a promise that he would receive treatment as a criminal sexual psychopath. The trial court found the confession to be voluntary and that finding was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter Lyle filed habeas corpus in the Federal District Court where it was held the confession was voluntary. That decision was affirmed on appeal. Lyle v. Wyrick, 565 F.2d 529 (8th Cir. 1977). Lyle continues his attack on the voluntary nature of the confession by contending on this appeal that the confession was involuntary because of the unfamiliarity of his Kansas attorney with the Missouri Criminal Sexual Psychopath Law. The Kansas attorney had testified at a motion to suppress the statement that the prosecutor's office had promised Lyle treatment under the Sexual Psychopath Act, however, police officers and two assistant prosecutors all denied any promises were made. The contention by Lyle that he gave the statement only in return for a promise to be treated as a sexual psychopath was the basis for all of his previous attacks on the voluntary nature of his statement and continues to be the sole grounds for his contention that the statement was involuntary.
Lyle's attack on his confession has been before two trial courts, the Missouri Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. All of these courts refused to find his statement to be involuntary. In Sweazea v. State, 515 S.W.2d 499, 501(2) (Mo.banc 1974) the court held that the constitutional rights of the defendant were fully protected when the issue raised in a 27.26 had been presented and reviewed by a court on appeal. The court further held that an issue finally decided could not be reopened and reviewed again simply because a different theory was suggested. Here, the involuntary nature of Lyle's statement has been fully presented and reviewed and this issue has been finally decided against him. That issue may not be reopened in this 27.26 even though a different theory is suggested.
Lyle next contends he waived a jury trial without being advised that the jury would be instructed on lesser included...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Remington v. State, 13644
...state that such proceedings were within the prosecutor's discretion. Davis v. State, 482 S.W.2d 468, 471 (Mo.1972); Lyle v. State, 617 S.W.2d 403, 405 (Mo.App.1981). However, that discretion must be exercised in good faith and not arbitrarily. State ex rel. Kirks v. Allen, 255 S.W.2d 144, 1......
-
Tippett v. State, 44366
...as this one was, cannot be relitigated on a Rule 27.26 motion. Sweazea v. State, 515 S.W.2d 499(2) (Mo.banc 1974); Lyle v. State, 617 S.W.2d 403(1) (Mo.App.1981). REINHARD, P. J., and SNYDER and CRIST, JJ., concur. ...