Hemphill v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Hemphill v. State

719 S.W.2d 51, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 4615

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 2, 1986

DocketNo. 50575

StatusPublished

This text of 719 S.W.2d 51 (Hemphill 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

Hemphill v. State, 719 S.W.2d 51, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 4615 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial, after an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 27.26 motion. We affirm.

Following his jury conviction of two counts of robbery in the first degree, which was affirmed by this court, State v. Hemphill, 669 S.W.2d 633 (Mo.App.1984), movant filed this Rule 27.26 motion asserting he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his lawyer’s failure to investigate his co-defendant as a potential witness. The Rule 27.26 judge chose to believe mov-ant’s trial attorney, who testified she did investigate the co-defendant and did not call him as a witness for reasons of trial strategy. The credibility of the witnesses was a matter to be considered by the court hearing the Rule 27.26 motion. Abrams v. State, 698 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Mo.App.1985).

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. State, 710 S.W.2d 30, 31 (Mo.App.1986). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

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

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial, after an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 27.26 motion. We affirm.

Following his jury conviction of two counts of robbery in the first degree, which was affirmed by this court, State v. Hemphill, 669 S.W.2d 633 (Mo.App.1984), movant filed this Rule 27.26 motion asserting he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his lawyer’s failure to investigate his co-defendant as a potential witness. The Rule 27.26 judge chose to believe mov-ant’s trial attorney, who testified she did investigate the co-defendant and did not call him as a witness for reasons of trial strategy. The credibility of the witnesses was a matter to be considered by the court hearing the Rule 27.26 motion. Abrams v. State, 698 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Mo.App.1985).

The judgment of the trial court is based on findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous. Thomas v. State, 710 S.W.2d 30, 31 (Mo.App.1986). No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

719 S.W.2d 51, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 4615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hemphill-v-state-moctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack