Warren v. State
| Decision Date | 07 September 1999 |
| Citation | 2 S.W.3d 128 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) . Richard A. Warren, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 74822 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Philip J. Sweeney
Counsel for Appellant: Elizabeth Haines
Counsel for Respondent: Shaun J. Mackelprang
Opinion Summary: Defendant Richard Warren appeals denial of Rule 29.15 relief after an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.
Division Four holds: (1) Because of the result, this Court reviews the merits of the appeal without deciding whether an amendment of Rule 29.15, effective January 1, 1996, expanded the scope of the rule to include Warren's allegations as the state argues. The issue was not briefed, and the motion court decided the issues on the merits. (2) The findings and conclusions of the motion court are supported by the evidence and the trial record. Thus, they are not clearly erroneous.
Defendant appeals denial of Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder in the second degree, first degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action. On direct appeal, this court reversed both armed criminal action sentences but affirmed the convictions of murder in the second degree and first-degree robbery. State v. Warren, 945 S.W.2d 515 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). Defendant filed a motion for post-conviction relief after our mandate and requested an evidentiary hearing. The motion court denied the defendant's Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing.
In the Rule 29.15 motion, Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to adequately object in five instances during trial and failing to preserve meritorious claims of error for review on appeal. He alleged in his amended 29.15 motion that "absent counsel's failure, to timely and appropriately object, the outcome of movant's appeal would have been different." (Emphasis added). Rule 29.15 "is limited to errors which prejudiced the movant by denying him the right to a fair trial." State v. Loazia 829 S.W.2d 558, 570 (Mo. App. 1992) (citing Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668, 687). The rule was amended on June 20, 1995, effective January 1, 1996, to permit "claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel." Rule 29.15(a). The State argues the allegations in the motion are directed at a change in the outcome of an appeal and not directed at the outcome of the trial are not reviewable because they are outside the scope of the rule. It relies on cases decided before January 1, 1996. Because of the result, we will review on the merits without deciding whether the rule change has expanded the scope of the rule to include defendant's allegations. That issue was not briefed and the motion court decided the issues on the merits.
The standard of review of a post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing is limited to whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law found by the trial court are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). The "[f]indings and conclusions are clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, we are left with the definite impression that a mistake has been made. State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 900 (Mo. banc 1995) (citing State v. Shurn, 866 S.W.2d 477, 468-69 (Mo. banc 1993)).
Defendant argues five sub-points comprising his one point on appeal. He argues that his counsel was ineffective because she failed to object to: (1) the trial court taking judicial notice of the files and transcripts of a co-defendant's guilty pleas; (2) hearsay testimony of a witness; (3) some of the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments; (4) evidence he had a gun, ski mask, camouflage mask, gloves, handcuffs which he argues was evidence of other crimes or bad acts with no relevance to the issues in the case; and, (5) the submission of instructions relating to the charges of armed criminal action.
Defendant's first sub-point is counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court taking judicial notice of the files and transcripts of a co-defendant's guilty pleas as evidence against defendant. Counsel did object and made a continuing objection to all of the co-defendant's testimony. Counsel did not have to renew her objection when the court took judicial notice of the co-defendant's testimony because of counsel's continuing objection preserved the point for direct appeal. The argument is based on unsupported fact. Point denied.
In a second sub-point, the defendant argues counsel was ineffective for failing to object to "hearsay testimony of Shelia Perdue..." This sub-point clearly violates Rule 84.04 and Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679 (Mo. banc 1978). A point relied on "shall state briefly and concisely what actions or rulings of the trial court are sought...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barriner
... ... Id. On direct appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court reversed his convictions and remanded his case to the trial court. Id. at 153 ... On remand, in Barriner II, the appellant's case again proceeded to a jury trial on a change of venue to Warren County. 111 S.W.3d at 396. The appellant was again found guilty on both counts and was sentenced to death on both counts. Id. at 397. On direct appeal, the Supreme Court again reversed his convictions and remanded his case to the trial court. Id. at 401 ... On remand, the ... ...
-
Bryan v. State
...Review of such claims is limited to a consideration of errors which deprived the movant of a fair trial. See, e.g., Warren v. State, 2 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Mo.App.1999); Garrison v. State, 992 S.W.2d 898, 901 (Mo.App.1999); Fears v. State, 991 S.W.2d 190, 190 (Mo.App.1999); State v. Link, 965 S......
-
Roberts v. Progressive Northwestern Ins.
...the trial court relied upon this testimony in finding that Campbell had Reliable's implied permission to use the Camero. Warren v. State, 2 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Mo.App.1999); Tripp v. Harryman, 613 S.W.2d 943, 950 (Mo.App.1981); State v. Davis, 556 S.W.2d 745, 747-48 The Western District of thi......
-
Jackson v. State, ED 87358.
...only results in ineffective assistance of counsel if it prejudices the accused and deprives him of a fair trial. Warren v. State, 2 S.W.3d 128, 131 (Mo. App.1999). The state may characterize the defendant or his conduct when the evidence supports the characterization. State v. Simmons, 944 ......