Teter v. State, WD
| Citation | 893 S.W.2d 405 |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | Christopher TETER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. 49226. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.
On February 7, 1989, the appellant, Christopher Teter, pled guilty to the felony of manufacturing and compounding marijuana in violation of § 195.020, RSMo 1986 (repealed), and was sentenced by the Ray County Circuit Court to five years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. Pursuant to a plea agreement, execution of the sentence was stayed by the circuit court and Teter was placed on probation for five years. 1 On August 6, 1990, Teter was brought before the Ray County Circuit Court for a probation violation hearing. 2 He confessed to having violated the terms of his probation by providing false information to his probation officer and using a controlled substance. While stating Teter's probation violations were "serious and material," the court continued Teter's probation with the additional condition of community sentencing and 120 days of house arrest.
On May 5, 1993, Teter again appeared before the Ray County Circuit Court for violating his probation by driving with a suspended license and not wearing a seat belt. At this hearing, his probation was revoked and Teter was committed to serve his five-year sentence. On August 2, 1993, Teter filed a Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at the May 5 probation violation hearing. The motion court dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing on December 1, 1993. By leave of this court, Teter appealed the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion on April 1, 1994.
In his sole point on appeal, Teter contends the motion court clearly erred, resulting in prejudice, in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the United States and Missouri Constitutions in that his counsel did not act as a reasonably competent attorney when he failed to properly and correctly argue the trial court's lack of probable cause to revoke his probation.
"Rule 24.035 allows only challenges to the validity of judgments of conviction or sentences, and then only on specified grounds." Wood v. State, 853 S.W.2d 369, 370 (Mo.App.1993). In Wood, the movant attacked neither his conviction nor his sentence. Rather, he attacked the legality of the order revoking his probation. "A [Rule 24.035 motion] is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the effectiveness of counsel at a probation revocation hearing." Id. Therefore, the court held, the trial court did not err in dismissing the movant's motion.
Furthermore, this court stated in Christy v. State, 780 S.W.2d 704, 706 (Mo.App.1989), 3
Therefore, although the motion court reviewed Teter's Rule 24.035 m...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Sachse
...a challenge through a state habeas corpus petition. See Swallow v. State, 398 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. 2013) (en banc); Teter v. State, 893 S.W.2d 405, 405-06 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995); see also Romano v. Wyrick, 681 F.2d 555, 556 (8th Cir. 1982). There is no indication of record, other than through non-......
-
Pomeroy v. Payne
...“may be reviewed by filing a writ of habeas corpus.” Winegar v. State, 967 S.W.2d 265, 266 (Mo. App. 1998). See also Teter v. State, 893 S.W.2d 405, 406 (Mo. App. 1995) (explaining that the “proper remedy” to challenge “the legality of a probation revocation is...habeas corpus”). In order t......
-
Williams v. McBee
... ... conviction entered by the Circuit Court for Dunklin County in ... the case State v. Williams, No. 14DU-CR00750-01 ... (35th Jud. Cir. Sept. 18, 2014). There, petitioner ... pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary on ... 1998) (citation omitted), nor are ... such orders normally reviewable under Missouri Supreme Court ... Rules 29.15 or 24.035. Teter v. State, 893 S.W.2d ... 405, 405-06 (Mo.Ct.App. 1995). In the context of 28 § ... 2244(d)(1)(A), petitioner's September 18, 2014 ... ...
-
Davis v. Purkett
...S.W.2d 649, 650 (Mo.Ct.App.1981), nor are such orders reviewable under Missouri Supreme Court Rules 29.15 or 24.035. Teter v. State, 893 S.W.2d 405, 406 (Mo.Ct. App.1995).1 In any event, the Court agrees with Respondent that the statute of limitations for Davis' federal petition began to ru......