McCullough v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McCullough v. State

507 S.W.2d 428, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1795

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 14, 1974

DocketNo. 9580

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 507 S.W.2d 428 (McCullough 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

McCullough v. State, 507 S.W.2d 428, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1795 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is the second appeal by appellant from the denial by the Circuit Court of Phelps County of his post-conviction motion [Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R.] to vacate the three year sentence he is serving for possession of mescaline. We affirm.

In the original appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying relief [State v. McCullough, 493 S.W.2d 353 (Mo.App.1973)] we reversed and remanded because of the failure of the lower court to make the required findings of fact and conclusions of law. Rule 27.26 (i).

On remand the trial court conducted a further evidentiary hearing on appellant’s charge of non-compliance by the sentencing judge of Rule 25.04, V.A.M.R., and that his plea of guilty was involuntary and coerced. The court made and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law adversely to appellant’s contentions and again denied relief.

We have reviewed the transcript and briefs of the parties and conclude the findings, conclusions and judgment of the trial court are not clearly erroneous. Scroggins v. State, 499 S.W.2d 818 (Mo.App.1973). No error of law appears and an opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed under Rule 84.16, V. A.M.R.

All concur.

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