Thomas v. State, 54136
| Decision Date | 06 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 54136,54136 |
| Citation | 759 S.W.2d 622 |
| Parties | Eddie James THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ilene A. Goodman, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Levin Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant appeals the denial of his 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
On March 17, 1982, movant was found guilty by a jury of three counts of forcible rape and two counts of forcible sodomy; however, on the basis of trial error movant's Motion For New Trial was sustained. Prior to the beginning of his second trial, movant pled guilty to the five counts pursuant to a plea bargain. In accordance with the plea bargain, movant was sentenced to twenty-three years on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Movant first asserts the court's decision should be reversed and remanded because the motion court's findings were inadequate for proper appellate review. We disagree.
The order denying movant's motion contained an extended recital of the facts presented by movant. The judge found none of movant's allegations were substantiated; he received effective assistance of counsel; he was not denied due process of law; and his plea was made voluntarily, knowingly and with full understanding of the consequences and not out of fear, duress or fraud.
Although the motion court's findings were not specific regarding each of movant's allegations, they were sufficient for appellate review under Rule 27.26(j) (repealed 1987). Therefore, there is no need to remand for further findings. See Seltzer v. State, 694 S.W.2d 778, 779 (Mo.App.1985) (); see also McCoy v. State, 610 S.W.2d 708, 709 (Mo.App. banc 1981).
In his second point, movant contends the motion court erred in holding his guilty pleas were voluntary, intelligent and knowing because his attorney threatened him with two consecutive life sentences if he proceeded to trial, never discussed possible defenses with him, and told movant he was too busy to prepare his case for trial, thereby leaving movant with no choice but to plead guilty.
Our review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j) (repealed 1987); Richardson v. State, 719 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Mo.App.1986).
All of movant's allegations sound in ineffective assistance of counsel. Our review of the allegations are limited to a determination of whether the alleged ineffectiveness rendered movant's guilty pleas involuntary. Polys v. State, 724 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Mo.App.1986).
The only evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing was movant's own testimony. Movant testified at length regarding the deficiencies of his trial attorney. He complained his attorney threatened him with the possibility of consecutive life sentences if he went to trial on the charges and was found guilty. The maximum punishment for the crimes for which movant was charged was life...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Watkins v. State
...The hearing court was not, of course, obliged to believe movant's testimony about his "back problems" and Dr. Hickey. Thomas v. State, 759 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo.App.1988); Mountjoy, 750 S.W.2d at 474. The hearing court was, however, required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on ......
-
Bagby v. State, 16223
...movant. The circuit court was not required to believe that testimony. Lett v. State, 761 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Mo.App.1988); Thomas v. State, 759 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo.App.1988); Scott v. State, 758 S.W.2d 170, 172 (Mo.App.1988). At the guilty plea proceeding the circuit court told movant the cour......
-
Adams v. State
...testimony. Garrett v. State, 814 S.W.2d 325, 327 (Mo.App.1991); Johnson v. State, 774 S.W.2d 862, 863 (Mo.App.1989); Thomas v. State, 759 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo.App.1988). Consequently, the motion court was not compelled to find Ms. Gilliam was kin to, or knew, the victim. Movant's second poin......
-
Garrett v. State
...testimony, even had there been no evidence to the contrary. Johnson v. State, 774 S.W.2d 862, 863 (Mo.App.1989); Thomas v. State, 759 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo.App.1988); Leigh v. State, 673 S.W.2d 788, 790[3 and 4] (Mo.App.1984). O'Neal v. State, 724 S.W.2d 302 (Mo.App.1987), cited by the motion......