Moore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Moore v. State

728 S.W.2d 686, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3962

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 1987

DocketNo. 14799

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 728 S.W.2d 686 (Moore 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

Moore v. State, 728 S.W.2d 686, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3962 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

MAUS, Judge.

On January 27, 1983, movant, as a result of a plea bargain, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree. § 565.004, RSMo 1978 (repealed L.1983). On April 18, 1986, he filed a pro se motion under Rule 27.26 (repealed effective January 1, 1988) seeking to set aside that plea and his sentence to life imprisonment. On the same day, the motion court, without the appointment of counsel or other proceedings, ex parte denied the motion. Movant appeals.

Rule 27.26(h) provides in part: “When an indigent prisoner files a pro se motion, the court shall immediately appoint counsel to represent the prisoner.” The motion court erred when it summarily denied the motion without the appointment of counsel. “Rule 27.26(h) mandates that counsel be appointed in every 27.26 proceeding, even one initiated by a defective pro se motion, so that counsel may confer with the movant, examine his case and present every possible claim in a single proceeding.” Hirsch v. State, 698 S.W.2d 604, 605 (Mo.App.1985). See also Fields v. State, 572 S.W.2d 477 (Mo. banc 1978); Taylor v. State, 704 S.W.2d 276 (Mo.App.1986); Owens v. State, 662 S.W.2d 323 (Mo.App.1983).

The judgment of the motion court denying the motion is reversed. The cause is remanded for the appointment of counsel and further proceedings in accordance with Rule 27.26, as sentence was pronounced before January 1,1988, and a motion under Rule 27.26 is pending. Rule 24.035(Z).

PREWITT, P.J., and FLANIGAN, J., concur. HOGAN, J., not participating.

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

MAUS, Judge.

On January 27, 1983, movant, as a result of a plea bargain, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree. § 565.004, RSMo 1978 (repealed L.1983). On April 18, 1986, he filed a pro se motion under Rule 27.26 (repealed effective January 1, 1988) seeking to set aside that plea and his sentence to life imprisonment. On the same day, the motion court, without the appointment of counsel or other proceedings, ex parte denied the motion. Movant appeals.

Rule 27.26(h) provides in part: “When an indigent prisoner files a pro se motion, the court shall immediately appoint counsel to represent the prisoner.” The motion court erred when it summarily denied the motion without the appointment of counsel. “Rule 27.26(h) mandates that counsel be appointed in every 27.26 proceeding, even one initiated by a defective pro se motion, so that counsel may confer with the movant, examine his case and present every possible claim in a single proceeding.” Hirsch v. State, 698 S.W.2d 604, 605 (Mo.App.1985). See also Fields v. State, 572 S.W.2d 477 (Mo. banc 1978); Taylor v. State, 704 S.W.2d 276 (Mo.App.1986); Owens v. State, 662 S.W.2d 323 (Mo.App.1983).

The judgment of the motion court denying the motion is reversed. The cause is remanded for the appointment of counsel and further proceedings in accordance with Rule 27.26, as sentence was pronounced before January 1,1988, and a motion under Rule 27.26 is pending. Rule 24.035(Z).

PREWITT, P.J., and FLANIGAN, J., concur. HOGAN, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 S.W.2d 686, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-moctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack