State v. Stidham

Decision Date05 June 1967
Docket NumberNo. 52406,52406
Citation415 S.W.2d 297
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James William STIDHAM, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Nowotny, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

James William Stidham, pro se.

STORCKMAN, Chief Justice.

The appellant James William Stidham is a prisoner in the Missouri State Penitentiary where he is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court on September 9, 1957. State v. Stidham, Mo., 305 S.W.2d 7. On March 9, 1964, Stidham, pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R. filed pro se in the Circuit Court of Butler County a motion to vacate and set aside his sentence. The motion to vacate was denied without an evidentiary hearing and on appeal this court on June 13, 1966, affirmed the order and judgment. State v. Stidham, Mo., 403 S.W.2d 616. Thereafter, Stidham filed pro se a second motion to vacate under Rule 27.26 which presented claims not made in his first motion. The trial court without an evidentiary hearing also denied the second motion to vacate and the prisoner's appeal from that order and judgment is now before us. The movant filed a brief pro se in this court and made an oral argument.

On January 9, 1967, this court adopted a revised S.Ct. Rule 27.26. The effective date of the revised rule is September 1, 1967, but the trial courts may use the new procedure before that date. State v. Garner, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 155, 157.

The amended rule was adopted after considerable study and is intended to provide a post-conviction procedure in accord with the principles enunciated in the so-called trilogy of Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148, Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837, and Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770. Further in keeping with the teachings of the trilogy, the amended rule is designed to discover and adjudicate all claims for relief in one application and avoid successive motions by requiring motions to be in questionnaire form and by providing for the appointment of counsel if the motion presents questions of law or issues of fact and the movant is shown to be indigent.

These and other provisions intended to furnish more adequate post-conviction relief were not provided by Rule 27.26 in effect at the time the present motion was filed or when the appeal was argued and submitted in this court. It is apparent, however, that regardless of whether this court affirms the order and judgment, or reverses and remands the cause, the movant will be immediately entitled to proceed under the provisions of amended Rule 27.26, and compliance with the amended rule would be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Garton v. Swenson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • June 25, 1976
    ...federal judicial system. In Pedicord v. Swenson, we noted that the same thing was true. See 304 F.Supp. at 394. 24 See State v. Stidham (Mo. en banc 1967) 415 S.W.2d 297, in which Chief Justice Storckman stated the proper appellate procedure for a Missouri appellate court to follow in the e......
  • Renfro v. Swenson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • August 14, 1970
    ...procedures. We also noted that court's decisions in Crosswhite v. State, (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 administ......
  • Smith v. Wyrick, 82-0916-CV-W-1-R
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • March 3, 1983
    ...effective September 1, 1967." The Fritz court then quoted the following paragraph from the leading Missouri case of State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Mo.1969): The amended rule was adopted after considerable study and is intended to provide a post-conviction procedure in accord with th......
  • State v. Stidham
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1970
    ...of the rule for 'a full evidentiary hearing' on all questions of fact. The order and judgment in that opinion is reported in State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297. And on tht proceeding, on Stidham's behalf, there has been a change of venue from Butler County and there has been a new and complet......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT