State v. Fritz, 53299
| Decision Date | 08 July 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 53299,No. 1,53299,1 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Leon Claude FRITZ, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., J. Steve Weber, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
J. Whitfield Moody, The Legal Aid and Defender Society of Greater Kansas City, Kansas City, for appellant.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Appeal from denial, without hearing, of motion, under Supreme Court Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., to set aside judgment of conviction for burglary.
The appellant, Leon Claude Fritz, was charged, under the Habitual Criminal Act, with burglary in the first degree, by information in the Jackson County Circuit Court. A jury found him guilty of burglary in the second degree and he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. The judgment was affirmed upon appeal to this court. State v. Fritz, Mo.Sup., 379 S.W.2d 589.
On April 15, 1967, Fritz, pro se, filed a motion under Rule 27.26, in the Jackson County Circuit Court, to set aside the judgment. On April 20, 1967, the trial court entered an order permitting the petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis. Mr. J. Arnot Hill of the Public Defender's Office was, by the order, appointed to represent the petitioner.
According to the court's findings in this case, the trial court's attention was subsequently called to the order of the court en banc in State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, and the court instructed Mr. Hill to have petitioner file an amended motion on the form prescribed by amended Supreme Court Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R. On August 11, 1967, an amended motion on such form was filed.
Part 8 of the form, requiring the applicant to state concisely all grounds for vacating the conviction, was filled in as follows:
'(a) The Trial Court erred in overruling Defendant's objection to Trial on May 28, 1963, upon the grounds of insufficient notice to defendant of the Amendment
'(b) That the Court erred in overruling defendant's 'Motion for Judgment of Acquittal'
'(c) The evidence was not sufficient to Sustain defendant's conviction of Burglary in the Second Degree.
'(d) Defendant was denied Due Process of Law As Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Article of the Constitution of the U.S.'
Part 9, calling for the facts to be stated claimed to support the grounds set out in Part 8, was answered by reference to 'Defendant's Appendix 'J', 'K', 'L' and 'M'.' The transcript here contains no such appendices and appellant's brief states that no appendix was attached to the amended motion. (There were appendices to the original motion, but none designated Appendix 'J', 'K', 'L' or 'M'.)
On August 14, 1967, the trial court entered an order denying the petition. The findings recite that 'Mr. Hill has examined the petition.' The court then recited the grounds for relief as set out above and concluded that all of the contentions of the petitioner were answered by the case of State of Missouri v. Fritz, supra. On such basis the motion was denied. This appeal followed.
At the oral argument here, counsel for petitioner acknowledged that he had not discussed with the petitioner, by letter or otherwise, the amended motion on which the trial court ruled. According to counsel, he anticipated that the motion would be set down for hearing and the petitioner brought to Kansas City for such hearing. Counsel planned to discuss the motion with petitioner at that time.
On this appeal, the petitioner's brief acknowledges that certain of the grounds stated in the motion were decided in State v. Fritz, supra. On the due process allegation, the brief acknowledges that no facts are set out in support of the allegation. However, the brief states that the allegation 'is unquestionably based on the cumulative facts that the trial court refused to give him a continuance to meet the new allegations contained in the amended information filed on the date of his trial, that the court failed to sustain his motion for a Judgment of Acquittal filed during the trial, that the evidence presented against him at the trial was not sufficient to sustain his conviction of Burglary in the second degree, plus the fact that appellant was not personally present on the 14th day of October, 1963, when the Trial Court entered a Nunc Pro Tunc Order correcting the original order entered on the 26th day of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renfro v. Swenson
...(Mo.Sup.Ct., Div. 2, 1968) 426 S.W.2d 67; State v. Stidham, (Mo.Sup.Ct., en banc, 1967) 415 S.W.2d 297; and State v. Fritz, (Mo.Sup.Ct., Div. 1, 1968) 429 S.W.2d 699, which appropriately implemented the proper administration of amended Rule 27.26 in order that postconviction proceedings whi......
-
Smith v. Wyrick, 82-0916-CV-W-1-R
...the record shows that petitioner's pro se motion was not filed in compliance with Missouri Rule 27.26(c). From the time of State v. Fritz, 429 S.W.2d 699 (Mo.Sup.1968), decided almost fifteen years ago, the appellate courts of Missouri have made clear that the trial courts of Missouri are e......
-
Fritz v. State
...to 10-years' imprisonment, and the judgment was affirmed upon appeal. State v. Fritz, Mo., 379 S.W.2d 589, and see also State v. Fritz, Mo., 429 S.W.2d 699, for a previous Rule 27.26 On April 15, 1967, Leon Claude Fritz, pro se, filed a motion under Rule 27.26. On April 20, 1967, the court ......
-
Frankum v. Swenson
...fully than usual because of the notice we take of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri in State of Missouri v. Fritz, Mo. Sup. Ct. Div. 1, 1968, 429 S.W.2d 699. The petition for federal habeas corpus alleges that an eight year sentence for statutory rape was imposed by the C......