Turner v. State, 13513
| Decision Date | 26 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 13513,13513 |
| Citation | 669 S.W.2d 642 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Thurman Boyd TURNER, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
David E. Woods, Regional Public Defender, Poplar Bluff, for movant-appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
On October 5, 1979, movant entered a plea of guilty to a previously filed felony charge of leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident in violation of § 564.450, RSMo 1969. Per a plea bargaining agreement, which included dismissal of two misdemeanor counts, movant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years, 1 said sentence to run consecutively to a previously imposed sentence of five years, after a plea of guilty, on a reduced charge of assault in the second degree. On October 22, 1981, movant filed in the Circuit Court of Stoddard County a pro se motion under Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., which only concerned the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident. Inter alia, the sworn-to motion recites: "Your Honor; I am not asking for the sentence to be vacated, just set aside and correction of sentence, for sentences [for assault and leaving the accident scene] to run concurrently." After appointment of counsel for movant was made, the 27.26 motion was twice amended and the state's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment was overruled, the cause was tried on September 30, 1983, and taken under advisement. On October 21, 1983, the court filed its findings of facts and conclusions of law and entered judgment denying the motion. Movant appealed.
The two points relied on in movant's brief on appeal are penned in complete disregard of the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R. On an appeal from denial of a Rule 27.26 motion the points relied on must conform to the specifications of the rule [Overall v. State, 540 S.W.2d 637, 638 (Mo.App.1976) ] and this court has no duty to resort to the argument section of the brief to ascertain "wherein and why" movant is claiming the court erred. Davis v. State, 586 S.W.2d 822, 824 (Mo.App.1979). However, as movant was not afforded, per Rule 84.08(a), V.A.M.R., a second chance to do correctly that which he should have done in the first instance, we briefly review what his points concern.
Movant's initial point, in effect, was that the lawyer who represented him in the criminal causes was ineffective to movant's prejudice because in early September 1979 when he pleaded guilty to second degree assault his counsel told him he "could get up to ten years for leaving the scene of an accident." The motion under consideration does not, except abstractly, concern the guilty plea to the assault. The motion here concerns only the plea of guilty to leaving the scene of an accident and ignores that on September 12, 1979, or almost a month before movant pleaded guilty to leaving the accident scene, he was correctly advised in writing by counsel that the maximum sentence for that offense was imprisonment for five years. See note 1, supra.
The second point relied on by movant is that the trial court in the Rule 27.26 hearing erred in admitting into evidence the circuit court docket sheets pertaining to the criminal charge against movant because the exhibits did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Callahan v. Collins, WD
...618 (Mo.1966); Hoekstra v. Jenkins, 730 S.W.2d 263, 267 (Mo.App.1987); Logan v. State, 712 S.W.2d 9, 11 (Mo.App.1986); Turner v. State, 669 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Mo.App.1984); State v. Meeks, 655 S.W.2d 536, 539 (Mo.App.1983); Hurse v. State, 527 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Mo.App.1975); Layton v. State, 500......
-
State v. Stoer, s. 17206
...duty to resort to the argument section of the brief to ascertain 'wherein and why' movant is claiming the court erred." Turner v. State, 669 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Mo.App.1984). As a result, Defendant's points present nothing for review. Tate v. State, 773 S.W.2d 190, 192 Both judgments are affir......
-
Mallett v. State
...determination whether the findings, conclusions, and judgment of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j); Turner v. State, 669 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Mo.App.1984); Franklin v. State, 655 S.W.2d 561, 563 Movant, in his brief, maintains that attorney Buckley advised movant that if an ......
-
State v. Root
...duty to resort to the argument section of the brief to ascertain 'wherein and why' movant is claiming the court erred." Turner v. State, 669 S.W.2d 642, 644 (Mo.App.1984). As a result, this point presents nothing for review. Tate v. State, 773 S.W.2d 190, 192 We do not feel compelled to rev......