Thomas v. State, 52541
| Decision Date | 28 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 52541,52541 |
| Citation | 736 S.W.2d 518 |
| Parties | Walter THOMAS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Dave Hemingway, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Deborah L. Ground, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for State.
Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Movant was convicted by a jury of second degree burglary and stealing and sentenced by the court as a persistent offender to consecutive terms of imprisonment of ten years on the burglary conviction and five years on the stealing conviction. His convictions were affirmed by us in State v. Thomas, 684 S.W.2d 569 (Mo.App.1984).
Movant filed a pro se Rule 27.26 motion seeking to set aside his convictions and sentences. He alleged that the original complaint charging him with burglary was nolle prossed by the issuance of an indictment a month later based on the same set of facts and that the failure to arraign him within ten days of the indictment warranted a judgment vacating his sentence.
Counsel was appointed, and she filed an amended motion that incorporated the grounds of the original motion and added as a second ground that movant's trial counsel, Jeff Childress, deprived him of a fair trial by failing to properly investigate the case and by failing to present "critical defense witnesses," namely, Gloria Coopwood and Richard Orr, Childress's investigator, who could have "presented valuable defense information."
Counsel withdrew and new counsel filed a second amended motion incorporating all previously-alleged grounds and adding as a third ground the claim that the state denied movant's right to equal protection by using its peremptory strikes to remove all blacks from the jury panel. A subsequent public defender then filed a "Second Amended Motion Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 27.26" which was identical to the prior second amended motion.
The court denied the Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The court found that movant failed to allege what facts would have been uncovered if his trial counsel had interviewed Coopwood and Orr, that a proper investigation would have uncovered those facts, and that those facts would have improved movant's position. The court further found that, because the case against movant was based on fingerprint evidence, it was not likely that any information produced by Coopwood or Orr would have improved movant's position. The court also denied movant's relief on the equal protection claim concerning use of peremptory strikes to remove black jurors.
To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 27.26 motion, the movant must allege facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would warrant relief; those facts must not be refuted by the record; and the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the movant. Chapman v. State, 720 S.W.2d 17, 18 (Mo.App.1986). When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on counsel's alleged failure to investigate, movant must allege "what specific information the attorney failed to discover, that reasonable investigation would have disclosed that information, and that the information would have aided or improved [movant's] position." Rice v. State, 585 S.W.2d 488, 493 (Mo. banc 1979).
Movant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seltzer v. State, 56046
...713, 93 L.Ed.2d 649, 658 (1987); Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 260, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 2881, 92 L.Ed.2d 199, 206 (1986); Thomas v. State, 736 S.W.2d 518, 520 (Mo.App.1987). In Thomas, this court adopted the rule on retroactivity contained in Allen v. Hardy, Batson was decided on April 30, 1986......
-
McKnight v. State, 53739
...not be refuted by the record; and the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the movant's defense. Thomas v. State, 736 S.W.2d 518, 519 (Mo.App.1987). Accepting movant's allegations in his pro se motion as true, he failed to allege facts which would warrant relief. The onl......
-
Thrasher v. State
...the judgment of the trial court was clearly erroneous. See Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 858 (Mo. banc 1987). Cf., Thomas v. State, 736 S.W.2d 518, 519 (Mo.App.1987); Hogshooter, Movant's contention of ineffectiveness of counsel also includes the allegation that counsel failed to invest......
-
State v. Cody, 56011
...she took a trip and was gone for one and one-half days. Counsel is required to make a "reasonable investigation." See, Thomas v. State, 736 S.W.2d 518, 519 (Mo.App.1987). The record indicates that counsel conducted a thorough search for the witness based on appellant's information. When, th......