State v. Rahberger, WD
| Decision Date | 22 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 747 S.W.2d 724 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Christopher J. RAHBERGER, Appellant. 39533. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Dennis J.C. Owens, Kansas City, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Karen A. King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GAITAN, P.J., and TURNAGE and CLARK, JJ.
In accordance with a plea bargain, Christopher J. Rahberger pleaded guilty on April 9, 1987, to robbery in the first degree. As a part of the bargain, the State dismissed a charge of armed criminal action. Also as a part of the bargain, the State recommended a term of imprisonment of ten years. After conducting a hearing, the court accepted the plea bargain and sentenced Rahberger to a term of ten years.
On May 7, 1987, Rahberger filed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and to vacate the judgment. Among the grounds alleged in the motion was an allegation that his attorney failed to advise him that the two victims of the robbery had not positively identified Rahberger. The court overruled the motion without a hearing on the ground that it was ludicrous.
On this appeal, Rahberger contends he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion. Reversed and remanded.
In State v. Mountjoy, 420 S.W.2d 316, 323[4-8] (Mo.1967), the court held:
"An application made pursuant to Rule 27.25 after the imposition of sentence to withdraw a plea of guilty is necessarily an attack on the validity of that sentence within the meaning of Rule 27.26, and the procedure to be followed is set forth in that rule...." 1
Rule 29.07(d) provides that a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty made after imposition of sentence may be granted only to correct manifest injustice. In Hall v. State, 496 S.W.2d 300, 303[4, 5] (Mo.App.1973), the court stated the familiar rule that once a guilty plea is entered, the adequacy of representation becomes immaterial except to the extent that the ineffectiveness of counsel bears on the issue of the voluntary nature and understanding of the plea. The court further held that a criminal defendant is bound by the plea "unless he can allege and prove serious derelictions on the part of counsel sufficient to show that his plea was not a knowing and intelligent act."
Under Rule 27.26, Rahberger would be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion if he pleaded facts, not conclusions, which if true would entitle him to relief, and if such factual allegations are not refuted by the files and records of the case. Ray v. State of Missouri, 644 S.W.2d 663, 666 (Mo.App.1982).
The allegation of particular concern in the present motion is that Rahberger's attorney failed to advise him that the two victims had not positively identified Rahberger as the person who had committed the robbery. There is nothing in the files and records, including the transcript of the guilty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...in 1980, motions under it continued to be treated procedurally as were motions filed under Rule 27.26. See State v. Rahberger, 747 S.W.2d 724, 724-25 (Mo.App. W.D.1988) (quoting Mountjoy for the principle that the procedures set forth in Rule 27.26 necessarily apply to a Rule 29.07(d) motio......
-
Yoakum v. State, WD
...Claims of ineffectiveness of counsel are only relevant in regard to the voluntariness of the guilty plea. State v. Rahberger, 747 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Mo.App.1988). To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on inadequate investigation, movant must specifically describe the ......
-
Moore v. State
...extent that the ineffectiveness of counsel bears on the issue of the voluntary nature and understanding of the plea." State v. Rahberger, 747 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Mo.App.1988); see also Hagan, 836 S.W.2d at To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief, the Mova......
-
Church v. State, 20693
...extent that the ineffectiveness of counsel bears on the issue of the voluntary nature and understanding of the plea." State v. Rahberger, 747 S.W.2d 724, 725 (Mo.App.1988); see also Hagan v. State, 836 S.W.2d 459, 463 (Mo. banc 1992). When a movant claims his plea was involuntary because he......