Griffin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Griffin v. State

601 S.W.2d 628, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3466

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1980

DocketNo. 40750

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 601 S.W.2d 628 (Griffin 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

Griffin v. State, 601 S.W.2d 628, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3466 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Movant, hereafter defendant, sought by his Rule 27.26 motion to vacate the trial court’s order revoking probation previously granted him from three concurrent eight-year sentences for first-degree robbery.

Defendant appeals from the summary denial of his motion, contending the trial court on defendant’s Rule 27.26 motion erred in failing to appoint counsel, failing to grant an evidentiary hearing and failing to make findings of fact and law. These charged failures might have merit if they were aimed at the original sentence. They were not; they concern only the revocation of defendant’s probation.

In summarily denying defendant’s rule 27.26 motion the trial court properly relied on Whitlock v. State, 538 S.W.2d 60[1] (Mo. App.1976), and Lett v. State, 550 S.W.2d 899[3] (Mo.App.1977). Both cases cite and follow Green v. State, 494 S.W.2d 356[2-4] (Mo. banc 1973), holding a Rule 27.26 motion provides a remedy only for challenging a sentence and not, as here, for challenging the legality of parole revocation.

Judgment affirmed.

DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.

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