Perryman v. State
| Decision Date | 21 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 9516,9516 |
| Citation | 506 S.W.2d 480 |
| Parties | Larry Wayne PERRYMAN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Douglas & Douglas, Elvin S. Douglas, Kerry D. Douglas, Bolivar, for movant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Robert Presson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Larry Wayne Perryman claims the summary denial of his Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., motion to vacate judgments of convictions and sentences by the Circuit Court of Polk County was error. We affirm.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of second-degree burglary and stealing in connection therewith and sentenced under the Second Offender Act to concurrent terms of six and two years imprisonment. His convictions were affirmed on diret appeal (State v. Perryman, 487 S.W.2d 515 (Mo.1972)) and his postconviction motion followed.
Appellant contends he was entitled to the appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing on the various grounds asserted in his motion, together with findings of fact and conclusions of law by the trial court. In its order overruling appellant's motion the court determined that the motion '(A)ttempts to raise only trial errors and matters that should have been raised on direct appeal and the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel is a conclusion only and states no facts requiring a hearing.'
Rule 27.26(e), (h) requires a hearing and the appointment of counsel for a prisoner 'Unless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . .' and 'If a motion presents questions of law or issues of fact.' Thus, the trial court by its order necessarily concluded appellant's motion failed to meet the standards required for post-conviction review. If the trial court was correct in arriving at its stated determination summary denial of appellant's motion was likewise proper. State v. Miner, 498 S.W.2d 814 (Mo.App.1973); Pauley v. State, 487 S.W.2d 565, 567 (Mo.1972).
Trial error such as allegations concerning instructions and the admissions or exclusion of evidence cannot be brought within the scope of a Rule 27.26 motion by simply alleging as a conclusion that they resulted in unfairness or affected constitutional grounds. O'Neal v. State,486 S.W.2d 206 (Mo.1972). Here, appellant alleged an insufficiency of the evidence to support the burglarious stealing verdict, errors in the instructions, and errors in the reception of evidence. The first two matters were raised, considered, and ruled adversely to appellant in his direct appeal (State v. Perryman, supra, 487 S.W.2d at 518, 519) and any complaint about the evidence, being an alleged trial error, could have been raised. Points considered and rejected on direct appeal will not be considered in a post-conviction proceeding (Hatfield v. State, 487 S.W.2d 574 (Mo.1972)) and such a proceeding cannot be used as a vehicle to retry the criminal case on its merits (Keeny v. State, 461 S.W.2d 731 (Mo. 1971)), or, a second review of questions determined on direct appeal (Covington v. State, 467 S.W.2d 929 (Mo.1971)). 'A proceeding under this Rule ordinarily cannot be used as a substitute for direct appeal involving mere trial errors or as a substitute for a second appeal.' Rule 27.26(b)(3). The above-mentioned grounds, being allegations of trial errors, do not present questions of law or issues of fact in appellant's motion to vacate.
The motion also alleged a violation of appellant's constitutional rights because his jury trial resulted in his receiving a longer sentence than the sentences received by his accomplices. According to the motion the accomplices entered pleas of guilty. This assertion likewise raises no issue of fact or law. Appellant's sentences were within the limits prescribed by law and if in fact his accomplices received lesser sentences this does not constitute a ground for relief and '. . . is not a matter to be considered on a 27.26 motion because his sentence was within the statutory limit . . .' Newman v. State, 481 S.W.2d 3, 7 (Mo.1972).
Appellant's allegation that he testified at the trial without knowing he was not required to do so and that it was the 'court's duty' to advise him of his privilege in this respect, and such failure by the court constitutes 'reversible error', presents no basis for relief under the Rule and is without merit.
Although asserted in reply to question 14 of the approved form for motions to vacate (Rule 27.26, Appendix, V.A.M.R.) as to why any grounds now asserted were not included in prior proceedings, and thus subject to the construction that the charge of ineffective assistance of counsel pertains to the direct appeal rather than his trial, we will nevertheless, consider this as one of appellant's grounds--as did the trial court.
Petitioners Counsel Did Not Do Any Work on His Case and Was Inefective (sic) As An Attorney' is the allegation. We agree with the trial court that this allegation is nothing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State
...State (Mo.App.), 517 S.W.2d 185; Hogshooter vs. State (Mo.App.), 514 S.W.2d 109; Bradley vs. State (Mo.), 494 S.W.2d 45; Perryman vs. State (Mo.App.), 506 S.W.2d 480; Smith vs. State (Mo.), 513 S.W.2d "Since this Court has determined and concluded that the Motion taken in its most favorable......
-
Buford, Matter of
...v. Wood, 378 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1964), which holds the motion to modify to be a separate independent proceeding, and Perryman v. State, 506 S.W.2d 480 (Mo.App.1974), which holds that a judge who had been disqualified by a defendant in a criminal cause did not err in presiding and deciding t......
-
Winston v. State
...supra, 492 S.W.2d at 773; State v. Miner, 498 S.W.2d 814, 816 (Mo.App.1973); Betts v. State, supra, 493 S.W.2d at 362; Perryman v. State, 506 S.W.2d 480, 483 (Mo.App.1974). The Supreme Court of the United States has never held that the right to appointed counsel extends to post-conviction m......
-
Swearingin v. State, 12207
...that they resulted in unfairness or affected constitutional grounds. O'Neal v. State, 486 S.W.2d 206 (Mo.1972)." Perryman v. State, 506 S.W.2d 480, 481 (Mo.App.1974). "A constitutional error is one that is so glaring as to cause a substantial deprivation of the right to a fair trial." Stewa......