Tyler v. State, 56888
| Decision Date | 11 September 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 56888,56888,1 |
| Parties | Melvin Leroy TYLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
William R. Kirby, St. Louis, Court Appointed, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., G. Michael O'Neal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
This is an appeal from denial of relief in a 27.26, V.A.M.R., motion following guilty pleas made January 18, 1965 to four charges of armed robbery on which defendant received separate sentences of eight years to be served concurrently. We have jurisdiction because the appeal was pending here on January 1, 1972, the effective date of the amendment to Sec. 3, Art. V, Constitution of Missouri, V.A.M.S.
The case is one where admittedly the trial court failed to comply with the requirements of rule 25.04. 1 The court accepted the pleas without first determining that they were made voluntarily and with understanding of the nature of the charges. So, at the 27.26 hearing, the issue was whether as a matter of fact, despite the failure to comply with rule 25.04, the pleas were made voluntarily and understandingly, State v. Mountjoy (Mo.Sup.) 420 S.W.2d 316. Although defendant had some twelve grounds in his motion to vacate, the constitutional issues actually in dispute were whether he was aware of the possible range of punishment, whether his physical, mental and emotional condition were such that he was incapable of entering a plea of guilty voluntarily, and whether there was ineffective assistance of counsel.
There was evidence on both sides of these issues, sufficient to meet the burden cast upon the state in the absence of compliance with rule 25.04, State v. Grimm (Mo.Sup.) 461 S.W.2d 746 and Moore v. State (Mo.Sup.) 461 S.W.2d 881 and cases there cited. On the first two issues the trial court had before it the testimony of defendant's earlier counsel against defendant's own testimony and that of a witness who was in jail with defendant near the time of the guilty pleas. On the ineffective assistance of counsel issue, it also was counsel versus defendant.
The trial court resolved these fact issues against the defendant and denied relief except to set aside the judgment of conviction with respect to one of the four robbery charges because it appeared that as to that charge there was a case of mistaken identity, the state's witnesses, shortly after the guilty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Woods
...v. State, 486 S.W.2d 219 (Mo.1972); Patton v. State, 486 S.W.2d 204 (Mo.1972); Brown v. State, 485 S.W.2d 424 (Mo.1972); Tyler v. State, 485 S.W.2d 102 (Mo.1972); State v. Sechrest, 485 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.1972); State v. Bascue, 485 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.1972); State ex rel. Highway Commission v. Wertz,......
-
State v. Cooper, 10173
...Defendant's brief shows it was prepared by inmate Melvin Leroy Tyler. See: State v. Tyler, 454 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.1970); Tyler v. State, 485 S.W.2d 102 (Mo.1972); Tyler v. State, 496 S.W.2d 793 (Mo.1973); Tyler v. State, 501 S.W.2d 189 (Mo.App.1973); Tyler v. Swenson, 440 F.2d 621 (8th Cir. 197......
-
State v. Conner, KCD
... ... Grimm, 461 S.W.2d 746, 749 (Mo.1971)), in default of which appellant is entitled to the relief he seeks. Tyler v. State, 485 S.W.2d 102, 104(2, 3) (Mo.1972); Moore v. State, 461 S.W.2d 881 (Mo.1971); Mountjoy v. Swenson, 306 F.Supp. 379, 384 (W.D.Mo.1969); ... ...
-
Tyler v. Swenson, 75--1085
...four 1965 robbery convictions. One of these four convictions has subsequently been vacated by the Missouri courts. See Tyler v. State, 485 S.W.2d 102 (Mo.1972). Apparently, this improper conviction resulted from a case of mistaken identity since witnesses later admitted that Tyler was not t......