McDaniel v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

McDaniel v. State

607 S.W.2d 228, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3540

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 30, 1980

DocketNo. 40939

StatusPublished

This text of 607 S.W.2d 228 (McDaniel 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

McDaniel v. State, 607 S.W.2d 228, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3540 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant’s Rule 27.26 motion sought to vacate his sentence of stealing property of the value of at least $50.00. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he contends that the court erred in failing to give him an eviden-tiary hearing.

Movant’s specific allegations are almost identical to those made by the movant in Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. banc 1974) cert. denied 420 U.S. 911, 95 S.Ct. 832, 42 L.Ed.2d 841 (1975). In Smith, the trial court denied movant relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. The Missouri Supreme Court determined that the movant’s allegations were either refuted by the record or did not state grounds entitling him to relief. The court then held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 411-12.

Here, as in Smith, movant’s allegations were either refuted by the record or did not state grounds entitling him to relief. Therefore, no evidentiary hearing was required. Burns v. State, 601 S.W.2d 633 (Mo.App.1980).

We find no error of law and an extended opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

DOWD, P. J., and CRIST, J., concur.

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

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant’s Rule 27.26 motion sought to vacate his sentence of stealing property of the value of at least $50.00. The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. On appeal, he contends that the court erred in failing to give him an eviden-tiary hearing.

Movant’s specific allegations are almost identical to those made by the movant in Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. banc 1974) cert. denied 420 U.S. 911, 95 S.Ct. 832, 42 L.Ed.2d 841 (1975). In Smith, the trial court denied movant relief without an evi-dentiary hearing. The Missouri Supreme Court determined that the movant’s allegations were either refuted by the record or did not state grounds entitling him to relief. The court then held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 411-12.

Here, as in Smith, movant’s allegations were either refuted by the record or did not state grounds entitling him to relief. Therefore, no evidentiary hearing was required. Burns v. State, 601 S.W.2d 633 (Mo.App.1980).

We find no error of law and an extended opinion would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

DOWD, P. J., and CRIST, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

607 S.W.2d 228, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdaniel-v-state-moctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack