Miller v. State
| Decision Date | 09 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 11506.,11506. |
| Citation | 603 S.W.2d 29 |
| Parties | Louis Hollie MILLER, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Blair Buckley, Jr., Public Defender, Caruthersville, for movant-appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jan Bond, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Motion for Rehearing and to Transfer Denied July 16, 1980.
Appellant Louis Hollie Miller filed a Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., motion seeking to vacate two life sentences imposed in 1952 after he had entered pleas of guilty to charges of first degree murder and first degree robbery. Following appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court of New Madrid County denied appellant's motion. We affirm.
By reason of appellant's pleas of guilty, his contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel are immaterial except to the extent this ground bears on the issues of voluntariness and understanding. Parks v. State, 518 S.W.2d 181 (Mo.App. 1974).
The doctrine of laches is inapplicable to a Rule 27.26 postconviction proceeding but the lapse of time may be considered in determining the good faith and credibility of one seeking such relief. Rhoades v. State, 504 S.W.2d 291 (Mo.App.1973).
Appellant admitted and the trial court found that the pleas were influenced by the possibility of the death penalty being imposed. Such fear does not render the guilty pleas involuntary. Wright v. State, 549 S.W.2d 554 (Mo.App.1977).
The trial court had the right to reject appellant's testimony of alleged derelictions of his court-appointed attorney and accept as true the attorney's testimony. Armstrong v. State, 534 S.W.2d 547 (Mo. App.1976).
The trial court's findings, conclusions and judgment are not clearly erroneous and the judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart, In re
...the doctrine of laches to 13 V.S.A. § 7131 actions. Accord, State v. Urbano, supra, 105 Ariz. at 14, 457 P.2d at 344; Miller v. State, 603 S.W.2d 29, 30 (Mo.App.1980). We recognize the significant state interest in the finality of criminal judgments. See United States v. Gross, 614 F.2d 365......
-
Hayes v. State, 15439
...639 S.W.2d 644 (Mo.App.1982), 2. A motion for post conviction relief must be filed within a reasonable length of time; Miller v. State, 603 S.W.2d 29 (Mo.App.1980); ... Jackson v. State, 548 S.W.2d 624 3. Where the motion and records of a case show that the Movant is not entitled to relief,......
- State v. Foster, 40813.
-
Easton v. State, 15741
...confined. The hearing court chose to believe the trial attorney's version of the events, which it had a right to do. See Miller v. State, 603 S.W.2d 29 (Mo.App.1980). The hearing court's findings and conclusions on this issue were not clearly Easton's remaining point, presented in a pro se ......