Shafer v. State
| Decision Date | 09 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 14255,14255 |
| Citation | 717 S.W.2d 867 |
| Parties | Charles Dale SHAFER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Michael R. Whitworth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Holy G. Simons, Columbia, for appellant.
Movant, charged with capital murder, was, in 1977, following a jury trial, convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by this Court, but the cause was transferred to the Missouri Supreme Court, which thereafter affirmed. State v. Shafer, 609 S.W.2d 153 (Mo. banc 1980).
In November of 1984, movant filed with the trial court his petition for relief under Rule 27.26. He appeals the trial court's denial of an evidentiary hearing upon his motion.
Movant claims the following:
1) He was prejudiced and was unconstitutionally denied a fair trial in that his jury did not represent a complete cross-section of the Jasper County residents;
2) His counsel was ineffective in that he did not object to the jury selection process used in Jasper County, which he alleges to be violative of §§ 495.060--495.120 RSMo and the Missouri and United States Constitutions;
3) He was prejudiced and denied a fair trial in that his counsel did not assert a defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility under Chapter 552 RSMo; and
4) His counsel was ineffective in failing to assert four non-raised points upon his motion for new trial.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the merits of an evidentiary hearing upon movant's allegations. Counsel for movant and the State appeared and argued their respective positions. The Court considered the pleadings and the transcript of movant's trial, and the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court upon movant's appeal of his conviction, State v. Shafer, supra, and denied an evidentiary hearing concluding no substantial issues of fact or law were raised requiring an evidentiary hearing. Upon our review of the record, we affirm.
In his first two points, movant claims procedures utilized by the jury commission in Jasper County in selecting names of residents going into the jury pool and the process of calling a jury panel and granting excuses for jury service do not comply with the controlling statutes. 1
Movant does not allege that he did not know nor that he could not have known of the alleged frailties in the jury selection process in Jasper County prior to the commencement of his trial. He does not allege the jury panel of twelve (12) jurors ultimately selected for his trial, beyond the disproportional township representation, resulted in the prejudice of any of his legal rights.
This Court has addressed the same issues in State v. Stephens, 699 S.W.2d 106 (Mo.App.1985). Statutes relating to the jury selection process are directory only. Deviations therefrom, if true, absent a clear showing of deprivation of constitutional rights and specific prejudice to the movant, do not entitle him to post trial relief under Rule 27.26. Except in cases where clear prejudice is shown, a defect in the jury selection process is not addressable in an action under Rule 27.26. McGrath v. State, 671 S.W.2d 420 (Mo.App.1984); Worthon v. State, 649 S.W.2d 577 (Mo.App.1983); Merritt v. State, 635 S.W.2d 27 (Mo.App.1982); Hemphill v. State, 566 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. banc 1978).
Where movant has not shown a denial of any right or prejudice, his allegations of ineffective counsel are without merit.
In his third point, movant alleges his counsel did not assert a defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. The record and movant's pleadings herein disclose movant was examined as to his mental condition by a doctor in Springfield and that although the physician's written report was not filed, movant's counsel consulted with the examining physician and...
To continue reading
Request your trial