Hammond v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hammond v. State

661 S.W.2d 850, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4460

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 29, 1983

DocketNo. 45287

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 661 S.W.2d 850 (Hammond 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

Hammond v. State, 661 S.W.2d 850, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4460 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

In 1977, movant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by this court in State v. Hammond, 578 S.W.2d 288 (Mo.App.1979).

At trial, the State presented evidence that movant killed a door-to-door salesman, Millard Malian, during the commission of a robbery. Three witnesses testified that they saw movant near the place that Malian was killed and at the approximate time of his death. In this regard, Mrs. Irons testified that she witnessed the crime and was certain that movant killed Malian. Another witness, Mrs. Loggins, testified that she saw movant walking away from the victim shortly after the shooting. A third witness, Mr. Wraggs, testified that he gave movant a ride from near the crime scene around the time of the murder. Movant did not testify on his own behalf and presented no other evidence.

Movant’s 27.26 motion alleges he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his alibi defense was not adequately investigated or disclosed under the discovery rule, and because his witnesses were not subpoenaed. In his motion, movant alleges that he gave his trial attorney the names of five witnesses who would testify that he was attending a birthday party at the time of the murder. However, the trial court denied movant’s motion without an evidentia-ry hearing.

An evidentiary hearing is required if: (1) the 27.26 motion alleges facts, not conclusions, warranting relief; (2) those facts raise matters not refuted by the files and records; and (3) the matter complained of resulted in prejudice to the movant. Kearns v. State, 583 S.W.2d 748, 750 (Mo.App.1979).

We are not judging the merits of movant’s claim. However, we believe sufficient facts were alleged which were not refuted by the record; if true, these facts could entitle movant to a new trial. Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Leigh v. State, 639 S.W.2d 406, 407 (Mo.App.1982).

[851]*851Reversed and remanded for an evidentia-ry hearing.

KAROHL, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

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

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.

In 1977, movant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by this court in State v. Hammond, 578 S.W.2d 288 (Mo.App.1979).

At trial, the State presented evidence that movant killed a door-to-door salesman, Millard Malian, during the commission of a robbery. Three witnesses testified that they saw movant near the place that Malian was killed and at the approximate time of his death. In this regard, Mrs. Irons testified that she witnessed the crime and was certain that movant killed Malian. Another witness, Mrs. Loggins, testified that she saw movant walking away from the victim shortly after the shooting. A third witness, Mr. Wraggs, testified that he gave movant a ride from near the crime scene around the time of the murder. Movant did not testify on his own behalf and presented no other evidence.

Movant’s 27.26 motion alleges he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his alibi defense was not adequately investigated or disclosed under the discovery rule, and because his witnesses were not subpoenaed. In his motion, movant alleges that he gave his trial attorney the names of five witnesses who would testify that he was attending a birthday party at the time of the murder. However, the trial court denied movant’s motion without an evidentia-ry hearing.

An evidentiary hearing is required if: (1) the 27.26 motion alleges facts, not conclusions, warranting relief; (2) those facts raise matters not refuted by the files and records; and (3) the matter complained of resulted in prejudice to the movant. Kearns v. State, 583 S.W.2d 748, 750 (Mo.App.1979).

We are not judging the merits of movant’s claim. However, we believe sufficient facts were alleged which were not refuted by the record; if true, these facts could entitle movant to a new trial. Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Leigh v. State, 639 S.W.2d 406, 407 (Mo.App.1982).

[851]*851Reversed and remanded for an evidentia-ry hearing.

KAROHL, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 S.W.2d 850, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-state-moctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack