Johnson v. Buehler

Missouri Court of Appeals

Johnson v. Buehler

767 S.W.2d 351, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 373, 1989 WL 24765

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 21, 1989

DocketNo. 54687

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 767 S.W.2d 351 (Johnson v. Buehler) 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

Johnson v. Buehler, 767 S.W.2d 351, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 373, 1989 WL 24765 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff filed suit in Warren County against his appointed counsel and against the State Public Defender, claiming intentional failure to prosecute his Rule 27.26 motion and requesting appointment of new counsel, monetary damages and costs. The circuit court judge dismissed the petition after finding it “to be totally frivolous and malicious” and finding improper venue. Plaintiff subsequently submitted a notice of appeal to this court along with a copy of an application, directed to the Circuit Court, to proceed with the appeal in forma pauperis. § 514.040, RSMo 1986. No filing fee was paid as required under Rule 81.04(c) and our records do not reveal that the application has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was never properly filed with this court and we dismiss. State v. Hanson, 563 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Mo.App.1978).

Even if plaintiff had correctly filed his appeal, he would not be entitled to relief. Rule 27.26(h) requires appointed counsel to provide a certain level of representation and if the record does not indicate that counsel had provided this representation, the motion court should not dismiss a movant’s petition. Berry v. State, 722 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Mo.App.1986). Dismissal under these circumstances would require reversal of the motion court’s order upon appeal. Lee v. State, 729 S.W.2d 647, 648 (Mo.App.1987). Plaintiff's petition indi[352]*352cates that the motion court had not yet addressed his Rule 27.26 motion. Consequently, his legal malpractice action was premature because counsel still had time to perform, 7A C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 267, and because the motion process had not yet determined that counsel had failed to perform his duties, see Johnson v. Schmidt, 719 S.W.2d 825, 826 (Mo.App.1986).

Appeal dismissed.

SIMON and HAMILTON, JJ. concur.

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

DOWD, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff filed suit in Warren County against his appointed counsel and against the State Public Defender, claiming intentional failure to prosecute his Rule 27.26 motion and requesting appointment of new counsel, monetary damages and costs. The circuit court judge dismissed the petition after finding it “to be totally frivolous and malicious” and finding improper venue. Plaintiff subsequently submitted a notice of appeal to this court along with a copy of an application, directed to the Circuit Court, to proceed with the appeal in forma pauperis. § 514.040, RSMo 1986. No filing fee was paid as required under Rule 81.04(c) and our records do not reveal that the application has been granted. Consequently, the appeal was never properly filed with this court and we dismiss. State v. Hanson, 563 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Mo.App.1978).

Even if plaintiff had correctly filed his appeal, he would not be entitled to relief. Rule 27.26(h) requires appointed counsel to provide a certain level of representation and if the record does not indicate that counsel had provided this representation, the motion court should not dismiss a movant’s petition. Berry v. State, 722 S.W.2d 130, 132 (Mo.App.1986). Dismissal under these circumstances would require reversal of the motion court’s order upon appeal. Lee v. State, 729 S.W.2d 647, 648 (Mo.App.1987). Plaintiff's petition indi[352]*352cates that the motion court had not yet addressed his Rule 27.26 motion. Consequently, his legal malpractice action was premature because counsel still had time to perform, 7A C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 267, and because the motion process had not yet determined that counsel had failed to perform his duties, see Johnson v. Schmidt, 719 S.W.2d 825, 826 (Mo.App.1986).

Appeal dismissed.

SIMON and HAMILTON, JJ. concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

767 S.W.2d 351, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 373, 1989 WL 24765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-buehler-moctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack