Johnson v. State
Opinion
Movant’s Rule 27.26 motion was denied by the trial court without an evidentiary hearing and he has appealed.
[500] Movant had been found guilty of possessing heroin and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. We affirmed the conviction in State v. Johnson, 529 S.W.2d 658 (Mo.App.1975). Thereafter movant filed his “post-conviction motion to vacate the judgment of conviction and sentence.”
We limit our review to deciding whether the trial court’s order is clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j).
The only ground in movant’s motion challenges the original search and seizure of his briefcase. In McCrary v. State, 529 S.W.2d 467[3] (Mo.App.1975) we ruled that “a claim of illegal search is not cognizable in 27.26 proceedings.” Further, this point was adjudicated on appeal and cannot be reconsidered in a post-conviction proceeding. Cochran v. State, 545 S.W.2d 710[1] (Mo.App.1975).
The state’s motion to retax costs is denied.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
553 S.W.2d 499 (Johnson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.