State v. Maness
| Decision Date | 10 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 51503,No. 2,51503,2 |
| Citation | 408 S.W.2d 15 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Hugh E. MANESS, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Moody Mansur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Hugh E. Maness, pro se.
BARRETT, Commissioner.
Upon a jury trial in Jefferson County, on March 29, 1939, with court-appointed counsel, Hugh E. Maness was found guilty of forcible rape and sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment. And now after the lapse of more than 25 years, August 1964, Maness instituted this proceeding under Criminal Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., to vacate the original judgment and sentence. The Circuit Court of Jefferson County appointed counsel to represent Maness in this proceeding, a hearing was had upon his petition to vacate the 1939 judgment and at the conclusion of the hearing the court denied the motion, stating among other reasons that 'neither in his motion to vacate or in evidence at the hearing on the motion was there suggestion of error which might have warranted a new trial.'
While his pro se 27.26 motion was a combined petition, brief and argument, the gist of his complaint was that his 1939 trial counsel 'failed to, and did not take any steps to secure an appeal of this Court's Judgment and Sentence and did further fail to respond to any communications sent to him by the defendant, or to in any way advise the defendant upon the nature and extent of his right to such an appeal or as to the possible means for securing such an appeal.' In this connection it was alleged that his trial lawyer was inexperienced and 'abandoned the defense in this cause,' meaning presumably that he did not take the necessary preliminary steps and perfect an appeal to this court. Incidentally the only extant records relating to the original trial are the information, the court's minutes and the clerk's records, 'no transcript of the trial is presently available due to the death of the court reporter.' In any event in support of his present motion Maness said that he did not know how to go about 'getting' an appeal, that he told the jailer as well as his sisters to tell his lawyer that 'I want to see him to appeal it for me,' but he did not hear from his lawyer. When asked whether and how he had been prejudiced through the lack of an appeal he said, Although he could not recall 'one isolated incidence' indicating the fact, he was of the opinion that the then circuit judge was prejudiced against him. In conclusion he said,
His two sisters testified that on two separate occasions, the two days following the trial, at their brother's request, they went to the lawyer's residence and 'asked him about filing a new motion' and he said 'he would see into this.' His lawyer, admitted mitted to the bar in 1934, practised with his father, an experienced lawyer, had tried one criminal case prior to defending Maness in 1939. He considered that case, assault with intent to kill, more difficult than the rape case in several respects. He detailed his investigation of the facts, his search for witnesses but 'Most of the witnesses that I talked to were that I would call Plaintiff's Witnesses.' He did not recall any visits by Maness' sisters, he did not 'recall receiving any' request from Maness that the case be appealed. He said that he did not withdraw as counsel, that he did not file a motion for a new trial or a notice of appeal. He knew of no prejudice on the part of any juror and of the judge he said, 'I know of no reason to know or think he was prejudiced.' And finally as to any trial errors or erroneous rulings by the trial judge the lawyer said, 'I don't specifically recall any.'
In these circumstances, citing and relying on a number of recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States of which Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799; and Douglas v. People of State of California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811, 816, are illustrative and representative, Maness now contends that the Circuit Court of Jefferson County erroneously denied his motion to vacate the 1939 sentence and judgment 'all of which is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment ot the Constitution of the United States.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maness v. Swenson
...relief. An appeal was allowed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which Court on October 10, 1966 affirmed the trial court in State v. Maness, 408 S.W.2d 15 (Mo. 1966). The present Federal habeas corpus complaint was filed March 1, 1967 and denied March 9, 1967; an appeal was duly allowed and ti......
-
Chastain v. State
...(1984). Also see Lumpkin v. Smith, 439 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir.1971). At one time, a contrary result was reached in this state in State v. Maness, 408 S.W.2d 15 (Mo.1966). However, "[t]he requirement of Maness that a defendant denied counsel to assist in the filing of an appeal must demonstrate ......
-
Lewis v. State, 57783
...of interrogation. Necessarily, the trial court resolved the discrepancies between this version and that of movant. See State v. Maness, 408 S.W.2d 15 (Mo.1966); Garton v. State, 454 S.W.2d 522 (Mo.1970); Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 76 S.Ct. 158, 100 L.Ed. 83 (1955); Kress v. United St......
-
State v. Dailey
...Id. at 488 (Emphasis added). The Ball court noted that in reaching this decision the appellate court had relied upon State v. Maness, 408 S.W.2d 15 (Mo. 1966). The Ball court further recognized [t]he requirement of Maness that a defendant denied counsel to assist in the filing of an appeal ......