Wheatley v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 59971,59971 |
| Parties | Ricky WHEATLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Daniel B. Hayes, Clayton, for appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
This case presents the question of whether, after counsel has been appointed for a petitioner who files pro se a motion for postconviction relief under rule 27.26, the trial court may, without giving counsel notice or an opportunity to be heard, summarily deny the motion.
The court of appeals, division one, St. Louis district, held not, in a two to one decision. The case was transferred here on application of the state. Treating the case as though it were here on original appeal, we reach the same result as did the court of appeals and remand the case accordingly.
Rule 27.26(h) provides, in part, that
In the case before us the trial court did, shortly after the motion was filed, appoint counsel and give notice thereof. Appointed counsel thereupon wrote movant in the penitentiary, asking for pertinent information about the grounds asserted in the pro se motion and also ordered a transcript of the guilty plea proceedings. Shortly thereafter the court, without notice, summarily denied the motion.
Once counsel had been appointed, counsel and movant were entitled to assume petitioner's pro se motion had survived the initial hurdle of stating a claim upon which relief could be granted under the strict tests imposed by Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. banc 1974). This being so, counsel for movant was entitled to the same treatment accorded any lawyer representing a client whose matter is firmly lodged in the court notice before the court acts on the matter adversely to his client.
The facts are that the trial judge who made the appointment of counsel was not the regular judge of the division and was succeeded by the regular judge who returned to the bench after an illness. It was the latter who summarily overruled the motion, without notice to anyone....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Wyrick, 82-0916-CV-W-1-R
...S.W.2d 896 (Mo. App.1974); Smith v. State, 526 S.W.2d 399 (Mo.App.1975); Harris v. State, 547 S.W.2d 519 (Mo.App.1977); Wheatley v. State, 559 S.W.2d 526 (Mo.Sup.1977); State v. Holland, 575 S.W.2d 869 (Mo.App.1978); Wilson v. State, 585 S.W.2d 243 (Mo.App.1979); and Quillun v. State, 626 S......
-
Seales v. State
...opinion. The only ground alleged in that motion was that the court of appeals opinion was contrary to this court's opinion in Wheatley v. State, 559 S.W.2d 526 (Mo.banc 1977), in that the circuit court allegedly, after the filing of movant- appellant's pro se 27.26 motion, then appointed co......
-
Luster v. State, WD
...to give written notice of its intention to rule on a specific date on the issue of granting an evidentiary hearing. Wheatley v. State, 559 S.W.2d 526, 527 (Mo.1977) (en banc); Mills v. State, 723 S.W.2d 71 (Mo.App.1986); Riley v. State, 680 S.W.2d 956, 958 (Mo.App.1984). Failure to provide ......
-
Chastain v. State
...motion. To support that proposition, he cites Lang v. State, 596 S.W.2d 739 (Mo.App.1980). That case incorporates language from Wheatley v. State, 559 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. banc 1977). Neither of these cases supports his position. In this case "[t]he trial court did precisely what was required by......