Carter v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Carter v. State

599 S.W.2d 958, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3455

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 1980

DocketNo. 11644

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 599 S.W.2d 958 (Carter 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

Carter v. State, 599 S.W.2d 958, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3455 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

BILLINGS, Presiding Judge.

Jimmy Marion Carter lodged this appeal from the order of the Circuit Court of Stod-dard County denying his Rule 27.26, V.A. M.R., motion to vacate judgment and sentence entered on his plea of guilty to second degree burglary. We affirm.

Appellant, represented by counsel, entered pleas of guilty to the burglary charge and a felonious no funds check charge and the trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. Thereafter, he filed this post-conviction proceeding attacking the burglary sentence and judgment. An attorney was appointed and the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Our review of a judgment in a Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., is limited to a determination of whether the findings, conclusions and judgment of the trial court are clearly erroneous. King v. State, 581 S.W.2d 842 (Mo.App.1979). We have read the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, the transcript of the guilty pleas proceedings, and reviewed the trial court’s findings and conclusions. We cannot say they are clearly erroneous. The credibility of the witnesses is a matter peculiarly within the province of the trial court. Baysinger v. State, 552 S.W.2d 359 (Mo.App.1977). The guilty pleas transcript and the testimony of his attorney contradict appellant’s contentions that he was not represented by an attorney on the burglary charge and that he was not aware of the nature of the charge against him. Furthermore, alleged conditions of the Stoddard County jail do not constitute grounds for vacating a guilty plea. Beach v. State, 488 S.W.2d 652 (Mo.1972).

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

BILLINGS, Presiding Judge.

Jimmy Marion Carter lodged this appeal from the order of the Circuit Court of Stod-dard County denying his Rule 27.26, V.A. M.R., motion to vacate judgment and sentence entered on his plea of guilty to second degree burglary. We affirm.

Appellant, represented by counsel, entered pleas of guilty to the burglary charge and a felonious no funds check charge and the trial court ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. Thereafter, he filed this post-conviction proceeding attacking the burglary sentence and judgment. An attorney was appointed and the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Our review of a judgment in a Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., is limited to a determination of whether the findings, conclusions and judgment of the trial court are clearly erroneous. King v. State, 581 S.W.2d 842 (Mo.App.1979). We have read the transcript of the evidentiary hearing, the transcript of the guilty pleas proceedings, and reviewed the trial court’s findings and conclusions. We cannot say they are clearly erroneous. The credibility of the witnesses is a matter peculiarly within the province of the trial court. Baysinger v. State, 552 S.W.2d 359 (Mo.App.1977). The guilty pleas transcript and the testimony of his attorney contradict appellant’s contentions that he was not represented by an attorney on the burglary charge and that he was not aware of the nature of the charge against him. Furthermore, alleged conditions of the Stoddard County jail do not constitute grounds for vacating a guilty plea. Beach v. State, 488 S.W.2d 652 (Mo.1972).

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

599 S.W.2d 958, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-state-moctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack