Green v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Green v. State

560 S.W.2d 891, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2902

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 9, 1978

DocketNo. 10306

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 560 S.W.2d 891 (Green 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

Green v. State, 560 S.W.2d 891, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2902 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

FLANIGAN, Judge.

Movant Ross L. Green appeals from a denial of his “Motion to Vacate Judgment and Set Aside Sentence under Rule 27.26.” A jury found movant guilty of the forcible rape of a seventeen-year-old girl and he received a sentence of 20 years’ confinement. On appeal from that conviction, this court affirmed. State v. Green, 515 S.W.2d 197 (Mo.App.1974). Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on the motion. After holding an evidentiary hearing in the presence of defendant and his attorney, the trial court made certain findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Although the motion contained several grounds for relief, only one of those grounds, that alleging denial of effective assistance of counsel, has been carried forward in movant’s brief and it alone need be considered, the others having been abandoned. Herron v. State, 498 S.W.2d 530, 531[1] (Mo.1973).

On this appeal movant asserts that counsel was ineffective in four respects. Two of the latter have not been preserved for appellate review for the reason that they were neither raised in the motion nor tried by the express or implied consent of the parties in the meaning of Rule 55.33(b). Harkins v. State, 494 S.W.2d 7, 14[7] (Mo.1973); Garrett v. State, 528 S.W.2d 174, 176[3] (Mo.App.1975).

The facts relative to the other two respects in which counsel was allegedly ineffective were fully developed at the eviden-tiary hearing. As to them, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Rule 27.26(i). This court has reviewed the record and the briefs and considered the authorities cited by the parties. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact and conclusions which are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

Pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

FLANIGAN, Judge.

Movant Ross L. Green appeals from a denial of his “Motion to Vacate Judgment and Set Aside Sentence under Rule 27.26.” A jury found movant guilty of the forcible rape of a seventeen-year-old girl and he received a sentence of 20 years’ confinement. On appeal from that conviction, this court affirmed. State v. Green, 515 S.W.2d 197 (Mo.App.1974). Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on the motion. After holding an evidentiary hearing in the presence of defendant and his attorney, the trial court made certain findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Although the motion contained several grounds for relief, only one of those grounds, that alleging denial of effective assistance of counsel, has been carried forward in movant’s brief and it alone need be considered, the others having been abandoned. Herron v. State, 498 S.W.2d 530, 531[1] (Mo.1973).

On this appeal movant asserts that counsel was ineffective in four respects. Two of the latter have not been preserved for appellate review for the reason that they were neither raised in the motion nor tried by the express or implied consent of the parties in the meaning of Rule 55.33(b). Harkins v. State, 494 S.W.2d 7, 14[7] (Mo.1973); Garrett v. State, 528 S.W.2d 174, 176[3] (Mo.App.1975).

The facts relative to the other two respects in which counsel was allegedly ineffective were fully developed at the eviden-tiary hearing. As to them, the trial court made findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Rule 27.26(i). This court has reviewed the record and the briefs and considered the authorities cited by the parties. The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact and conclusions which are not clearly erroneous and no error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value.

Pursuant to Rule 84.16(b) the judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 S.W.2d 891, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-v-state-moctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack