Cochran v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cochran v. State

545 S.W.2d 710

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 28, 1976

DocketNo. 38329

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 545 S.W.2d 710 (Cochran 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

Cochran v. State, 545 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

CLEMENS, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his second Rule 27.26 motion. He seeks to set aside his conviction and ten-year sentence for armed robbery.

Movant’s first two grounds concern denial of his right to a speedy trial and failure to produce a police report at his trial. Both points were raised and denied [711]*711on his direct appeal. See State v. Cochran, 366 S.W.2d 360[1, 2] (Mo.1963). They cannot be reconsidered in this post-conviction proceeding. Sweazea v. State, 515 S.W.2d 499[1] (Mo.1974).

Movant’s last three grounds concern identification testimony, cross examination of witnesses and jury instructions. These grounds not only concern trial errors but could have been raised in movant’s earlier Rule 27.26 motion filed and denied in 1970. Movant is thus doubly precluded from raising these three grounds in a collateral attack on his conviction. Brown v. State, 492 S.W.2d 762[4] (Mo.1973); Newman v. State, 481 S.W.2d 3[1] (Mo.1972).

Judgment affirmed.

WEIER, P. J., and DOWD, J., concur.

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

CLEMENS, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his second Rule 27.26 motion. He seeks to set aside his conviction and ten-year sentence for armed robbery.

Movant’s first two grounds concern denial of his right to a speedy trial and failure to produce a police report at his trial. Both points were raised and denied [711]*711on his direct appeal. See State v. Cochran, 366 S.W.2d 360[1, 2] (Mo.1963). They cannot be reconsidered in this post-conviction proceeding. Sweazea v. State, 515 S.W.2d 499[1] (Mo.1974).

Movant’s last three grounds concern identification testimony, cross examination of witnesses and jury instructions. These grounds not only concern trial errors but could have been raised in movant’s earlier Rule 27.26 motion filed and denied in 1970. Movant is thus doubly precluded from raising these three grounds in a collateral attack on his conviction. Brown v. State, 492 S.W.2d 762[4] (Mo.1973); Newman v. State, 481 S.W.2d 3[1] (Mo.1972).

Judgment affirmed.

WEIER, P. J., and DOWD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 S.W.2d 710, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cochran-v-state-moctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack