Adams v. State

578 S.W.2d 297, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 3155
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 26, 1979
DocketNo. KCD 28912
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 578 S.W.2d 297 (Adams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. State, 578 S.W.2d 297, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 3155 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted by jury December 4, 1974 for first degree robbery. Sentence was affixed at fifteen years. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, State v. Adams, 531 S.W.2d 763 (Mo.App.1975).

Appellant then sought post conviction relief pursuant to Rule 27.26. In his motion, Appellant raised only one point:

“8(a) It was error for the trial court to admit into evidence of prior conviction of movant as he was greatly prejudiced thereby.”

This appeal was taken from the trial court’s summary denial of the motion. The denial was based upon two points:

1. issue should have been raised on direct appeal.
[298]*2982. prior conviction would have been admissible to impeach Appellant’s credibility and such evidence was brought out by defense counsel in anticipation of possible impeachment.

Appellant’s brief alleges ineffective counsel at the time of the denial of the motion under Rule 27.26. There being no such allegation in Appellant’s motion, this question is not reviewable by this court. Lockhart v. State, 548 S.W.2d 291 (Mo.App.1977); Shubert v. State, 518 S.W.2d 326 (Mo.App.1975); Schleicher v. State, 483 S.W.2d 393 (Mo. banc 1972).

Rule 27.26 is self-containing as to review of error, findings, conclusion and judgment of trial courts. The question of ineffective counsel was never before the trial court and cannot be permitted to serve as a basis of appeal from the trial court’s order.

Fields v. State, 572 S.W.2d 477 (Mo. banc 1978) does not control here because it is prospective only.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brown v. State
729 S.W.2d 54 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
578 S.W.2d 297, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 3155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-state-moctapp-1979.