Cruz v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cruz v. State

515 S.W.2d 610, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1641

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 29, 1974

DocketNo. 9682

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 515 S.W.2d 610 (Cruz 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

Cruz v. State, 515 S.W.2d 610, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1641 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

BILLINGS, Judge.

Appellant Rudolph Melvin Cruz, serving a twenty-year prison term for first degree robbery following his plea of guilty thereto in Greene County Circuit Court, was denied post-conviction relief under Rule 27.-26, V.A.M.R. He contends errors were committed in the lower court’s failures to appoint him counsel, hold an evidentiary hearing, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm.

The transcript of the proceedings at the time appellant pleaded guilty conclusively shows that appellant is entitled to no relief on his stated grounds of involuntary plea, mental incompetency, ineffective assistance of counsel, and non-compliance by the court with Rule 25.04, V.A.M.R., and Chapter 552, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. We say this because appellant’s grounds, and sub-grounds thereof, are fully and adequately controverted by the guilty plea record. Additionally, appellant’s motion does not plead facts, which if true would entitle him to relief, and does not affirmatively show that such factual allegations are not refuted by the facts elicited at the time of his plea. Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. banc 1974); Hogshooter v. State, 514 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1974). Therefore, appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing were not required.

The summary denial of appellant’s motion was equivalent to findings and conclusions in opposition to the grounds of his motion. Smith v. State, supra. Hogshooter v. State, supra; Perryman v. State, 506 S.W.2d 480 (Mo.App.1974); Betts v. State, 493 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.1973); Pauley v. State, 487 S.W.2d 565 (Mo.1972).

Judgment affirmed.

HOGAN, C. J., and STONE, TITUS and FLANIGAN, JJ., concur.

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

BILLINGS, Judge.

Appellant Rudolph Melvin Cruz, serving a twenty-year prison term for first degree robbery following his plea of guilty thereto in Greene County Circuit Court, was denied post-conviction relief under Rule 27.-26, V.A.M.R. He contends errors were committed in the lower court’s failures to appoint him counsel, hold an evidentiary hearing, and make findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm.

The transcript of the proceedings at the time appellant pleaded guilty conclusively shows that appellant is entitled to no relief on his stated grounds of involuntary plea, mental incompetency, ineffective assistance of counsel, and non-compliance by the court with Rule 25.04, V.A.M.R., and Chapter 552, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S. We say this because appellant’s grounds, and sub-grounds thereof, are fully and adequately controverted by the guilty plea record. Additionally, appellant’s motion does not plead facts, which if true would entitle him to relief, and does not affirmatively show that such factual allegations are not refuted by the facts elicited at the time of his plea. Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. banc 1974); Hogshooter v. State, 514 S.W.2d 109 (Mo.App.1974). Therefore, appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing were not required.

The summary denial of appellant’s motion was equivalent to findings and conclusions in opposition to the grounds of his motion. Smith v. State, supra. Hogshooter v. State, supra; Perryman v. State, 506 S.W.2d 480 (Mo.App.1974); Betts v. State, 493 S.W.2d 361 (Mo.App.1973); Pauley v. State, 487 S.W.2d 565 (Mo.1972).

Judgment affirmed.

HOGAN, C. J., and STONE, TITUS and FLANIGAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 S.W.2d 610, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cruz-v-state-moctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack