Watkins v. State
| Decision Date | 16 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 16369,16369 |
| Citation | 784 S.W.2d 347 |
| Parties | Leroy WATKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Leroy Watkins, Cameron, pro se.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Appellant, Leroy Watkins, was convicted of the criminal offense of assault in the first degree. § 565.050, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984. That conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Watkins, 724 S.W.2d 674 (Mo.App.1987). Appellant is presently incarcerated serving the sentence imposed in that case.
In 1987 appellant filed a post-conviction motion pursuant to Rule 27.26 1 seeking to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. The court in which it was filed denied that motion March 3, 1989, after an evidentiary hearing. 2 Appellant then, on March 23, 1989, filed a pleading denominated "Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis."
The coram nobis petition asserts that appellant's trial counsel was ineffective and that appellant's post-conviction counsel was ineffective. It also recites various alleged errors by the trial judge who ruled upon appellant's Rule 27.26 motion.
The coram nobis petition was dismissed by the trial court without a hearing. The order of dismissal stated, "Rule 29.15 being the exclusive procedure for the requested relief and [appellant] having already had a 27.26 motion, this action is dismissed."
Appellant now appeals the dismissal of his "Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis." Appellant is proceeding pro se. Appellant's brief states one point upon which he relies. The point is not stated concisely; however, it appears to assert, as alleged error, the dismissal of the petition without first having appointed counsel and without having entered findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Also pending is respondent's "Motion for Court of Appeals to Take Judicial Notice of Its Own Files." That motion requests this court to judicially notice its files in appellant's pending appeal from the judgment dismissing his Rule 27.26 motion, our case No. 16307. The motion was taken with the case and it is herewith considered and granted.
Appellant's complaint on appeal is without merit.
Respondent calls our attention to the fact that Rule 74.06(d) abolished writs of coram nobis. 3 Thus, unless appellant's petition may be deemed as a motion for relief under some other procedure permitted by present rules, the prior elimination of writs of coram nobis is determinative. Appellant's coram nobis petition attempts to assert grounds for setting aside or vacating the prison sentence which he is presently serving. Thus, as noted by the trial court's order dismissing the coram nobis petition, Rule 29.15 is the exclusive remedy for the relief sought. Appellant had a prior Rule 27.26 motion pending on the effective date of Rule 29.15. He is not now entitled to a successive post-conviction motion. Rule 29.15(k). The judgment dismissing appellant's "Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis" is affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fults v. State, 60210
...mandating the rule as the exclusive remedy for such claims bars consideration of motions outside Rule 29.15. See Watkins v. State, 784 S.W.2d 347, 348[1, 2] (Mo.App.1990). The motion court was therefore correct in its dismissal of Movant's motion. Movant had exhausted his right to proceed w......
-
Smeeton v. State, No. 17293
...a writ of error coram nobis. That determination was correct. Writs of coram nobis were abolished by Rule 74.06(d). See Watkins v. State, 784 S.W.2d 347, 348 (Mo.App.1990). Appellant's petition did not seek habeas corpus relief. It did not plead sufficient facts to satisfy the requirements o......
-
State v. Ford
...under some other procedure permitted by present rules, prior elimination of writs of coram nobis is determinative. Watkins v. State, 784 S.W.2d 347, 348 (Mo.App.1990). A review of other available procedures does not reveal that defendant's motion constitutes a request for relief permitted b......
-
Section 31.37 Writ of Error Coram Nobis
...(Mo. App. S.D. 1991). Rules 29.15 and 24.035 now provide the “exclusive” remedy for post-conviction relief in Missouri. Watkins v. State, 784 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. App. S.D. 1990). Rule 74.06(d) also abolished writs of coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review. 2012 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT (......