Warren v. State, 56428
| Decision Date | 13 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 56428,No. 1,56428,1 |
| Parties | Lee Vernon WARREN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Vern H. Schneider, Richard A. Stockenberg, St. Louis, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Thomas H. Stahl, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
WELBORN, Commissioner.
Appeal from denial of relief in proceeding under Supreme Court Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R. On July 9, 1968, Lee Vernon Warren was sentenced to life imprisonment upon plea of guilty to charge of murder in the first degree. In February, 1969, he filed a motion under Supreme Court Rule 27.26, seeking to have the conviction set aside. The grounds alleged in his motion were:
'(a) Undue delay between arrest and arraignment--see Mallory vs. U.S., 354 U.S. 446 (77 S.Ct. 1356, 1 L.Ed.2d 1479); (A--1) Statements made during illegal detention are void--see Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 66 page 6.
'(b) Ineffective appointment of counsel who inadequately represented movant; (B--2) denied guiding hand of counsel at critical stage of proceedings in curia and hospital interrogation.
'(c) Plea of guilty predicated upon psychological coercion employed to extract statements without affording or advising movant his constitutional rights, in absence of cognizant and intelligent waiver.'
An evidentiary hearing was held at which Warren was present, represented by an appointed attorney. Warren testified at the hearing. The trial court denied relief and, on March 9, 1970, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed by this court. State v. Warren, Mo.Sup., 451 S.W.2d 30.
On August 20, 1970, Warren filed a second 27.26 motion in the circuit court, again seeking to have the murder conviction set aside. The grounds stated in the motion were:
In response to the question in the application, movant stated that the questions of undue delay between arrest and arraignment, statement made during illegal detention and ineffective assistance of counsel had been raised in the prior 27.26 motion, but had not been ruled on. As the reason for not having raised in the prior proceeding the other grounds advanced in the current motion, movant stated: 'Movant not versed in law.'
On September 17, 1970, the circuit court, upon examination of the files and records, made the following order:
'That on February 13, 1969, the Movant filed a Motion to Set Aside Judgment and Sentence Under S.P. Rule 27.26, that on May 16, 1969, a hearing on said motion was held, that on May 21, 1969, the same motion was overruled by this Court, that on May 23, 1969 an appeal was taken from said ruling to the Supreme Court of Missouri, that in the January session, 1970, the Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court (Supreme Court 451 S.W.2d 30), that the motion under Supreme Court Rule 27.26 filed August 20, 1970 is second motion filed in the same case asking for similar relief; therefore, it is ordered that the Motion Under Supreme Court Rule 27.26 to Correct Judgment and Sentence filed ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Russell
...to Ground Three of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation comes from an argument where he cites "Fields v. State (1971)2" and "Warren v. State (1971)," to show that in those cases the "Court of appeals Reversed the Trial Court's decision mainly because the trial Court did not make......
-
Donaldson v. State
...(d) casts a burden on appellant to establish that any new ground could not have been raised in his prior motion. Warren v. State, 473 S.W.2d 427 (Mo.1971); Newman v. State, supra; Veneri v. State, 474 S.W.2d 833 (Mo.1971). Rule 27.26(i) requires the trial court to make findings of fact and ......
-
Shields v. State, 34861
...raised by him in the prior motion. It is true that the rule recognizes a prisoner is not limited to a single motion to vacate. Warren v. State, Mo., 473 S.W.2d 427. But merely because the rule does authorize a second motion, it does not necessarily follow that the movant is entitled to a se......
-
Warren v. State
...court reversed and remanded with directions to consider the second motion in the light of subparagraph (d) of Rule 27.26. Warren v. State 473 S.W.2d 427 (Mo.1971). I DISQUALIFICATION OF Appellant contends that the judgment should be reversed because the trial judge erred in overruling his m......