Tipton v. State, 60979
| Decision Date | 25 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 60979,60979 |
| Citation | 838 S.W.2d 138 |
| Parties | Calvin TIPTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David C. Hemingway, David Bruns, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Hugh L. Marshall, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion. Movant had previously entered a plea of guilty to possession of phencyclidine (PCP) in violation of § 195.202 R.S.Mo. (Cum.Supp.1989) and was sentenced to a term of three years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. In his single point on appeal movant states that the motion court erred wherein it failed to grant his motion requesting an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 24.035 motion. As to why this was error, movant alleges that his plea was involuntary because his counsel failed to properly investigate his case. We note that movant's point fails to comply with Rule 30.06(d) in that his statements of wherein and why the motion court erred are inconsistent. "A point relied on, after identifying the alleged erroneous ruling of the motion court, must specify why the ruling was erroneous." State v. Root, 820 S.W.2d 682, 686[6, 7] (Mo.App.1991). The allegation that movant's plea was involuntary because his counsel failed to investigate his case does not explain why the motion court erred in failing to grant movant's motion for an evidentiary hearing. In the interest of fairness, and to dispose of the case on its merits, we will address the issues we glean from movant's point and argument. State v. Dusso, 760 S.W.2d 546, 547 (Mo.App.1988).
Movant's point and argument basically raises two points of error, the denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing and the denial of his claim that his plea was involuntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Review of the denial of a post-conviction motion is limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j). The motion court's findings and conclusions are deemed clearly erroneous only if a full review of the record leaves us with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. McPherson v. State, 818 S.W.2d 708, 709 (Mo.App.1991). To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, movant must: 1) allege facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would warrant relief and these facts raise matters not refuted by the record and files in the case, and 2) the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to him. Gillespie v. State, 785 S.W.2d 725, 726 (Mo.App.1990). If an examination of movant's guilty plea proceeding directly refutes his allegation that his plea was involuntary he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. McShan v. State, 774 S.W.2d 846, 847 (Mo.App.1989). The issue of defense counsel's effectiveness is material only to the extent that it affects whether the guilty plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. McShan, 774 S.W.2d at 847.
Initially movant argues that he should have received an evidentiary hearing on his motion. In his amended motion movant alleged:
that the policeman who testified at the preliminary hearing that he seized the drugs in fact did not stop [movant] and never searched [movant] and thus could not have seized any drugs from [movant]. The movant would have told defense counsel that the policeman who wrote him the traffic tickets was the policeman who allegedly seized the drugs.
We note movant has failed to allege what the ticketing officer's testimony would have been. The record reveals that during the guilty plea proceeding, movant stated that: 1) he was entering a plea of guilty of his own free will; 2) there were no witnesses that he thought would be helpful in his defense; 3) he was satisfied with the representation he had received, his attorney's investigation of his case and the amount of time she spent with him. The court explained mo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Soto v. State, No. 18319
...v. State, 785 S.W.2d 524, 527 (Mo. banc 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 882, 111 S.Ct. 229, 112 L.Ed.2d 183 (1990); Tipton v. State, 838 S.W.2d 138, 139 (Mo.App.1992). In his first point, Movant argues that his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy was violated when he was conv......
-
Stegmaier v. State, WD
...only if a complete review of the record leaves the appellate court with a definite impression a mistake has been made. Tipton v. State, 838 S.W.2d 138 (Mo.App.1992). Rule 24.035 requires a movant to include every ground known to him to vacate set aside or correct the judgment or sentence. I......
-
Steinle v. State, WD
...of the entire record leaves the appellate court with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Tipton v. State, 838 S.W.2d 138, 139 (Mo.App.1992). After entering a guilty plea, the ineffective assistance of a defendant's counsel is relevant only to the extent that it affe......
-
Jones v. State, 62937
...denial, we must be left with a firm and definite impression a mistake has been made after reviewing the full record. Tipton v. State, 838 S.W.2d 138, 139 (Mo.App.1992). On appeal, Defendant first argues his guilty plea was involuntary because he was under the misapprehension he would be sen......