Pierce v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pierce v. State

604 S.W.2d 668, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3482

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 29, 1980

DocketNo. 42136

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 604 S.W.2d 668 (Pierce 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

Pierce v. State, 604 S.W.2d 668, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3482 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant pleaded guilty to the charge of rape before the circuit court of Cape Girar-deau County and was sentenced to a term of 12 years in the Department of Corrections. Subsequently he filed this Rule 27.26 motion asking the court to vacate that sentence. The court denied movant relief without an evidentiary hearing after making extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law.

[669]*669An evidentiary hearing must be held on a Rule 27.26 motion “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . . .” Rule 27.26(e). See Haliburton v. State, 546 S.W.2d 771, 773 (Mo.App.1977). The court determined that such was the case here, and “we must affirm the ruling of the trial judge unless it appears his findings, conclusions and judgment are ‘clearly erroneous.’ ” Laney v. State, 584 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Mo.App.1979); Rule 27.26(j). We conclude that the circuit court’s judgment is based upon findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous.

We conclude that Judge Grimm had jurisdiction to hear this proceeding in that movant had previously exercised his one disqualification under Rule 51.05. Judge Grimm properly denied the second motion.

We determine that no error of law appears in this case and that an opinion would have no precedential value.

Accordingly, and in compliance with Rule 84.16(b), the judgment is affirmed.

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 pleaded guilty to the charge of rape before the circuit court of Cape Girar-deau County and was sentenced to a term of 12 years in the Department of Corrections. Subsequently he filed this Rule 27.26 motion asking the court to vacate that sentence. The court denied movant relief without an evidentiary hearing after making extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law.

[669]*669An evidentiary hearing must be held on a Rule 27.26 motion “[u]nless the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . . .” Rule 27.26(e). See Haliburton v. State, 546 S.W.2d 771, 773 (Mo.App.1977). The court determined that such was the case here, and “we must affirm the ruling of the trial judge unless it appears his findings, conclusions and judgment are ‘clearly erroneous.’ ” Laney v. State, 584 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Mo.App.1979); Rule 27.26(j). We conclude that the circuit court’s judgment is based upon findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous.

We conclude that Judge Grimm had jurisdiction to hear this proceeding in that movant had previously exercised his one disqualification under Rule 51.05. Judge Grimm properly denied the second motion.

We determine that no error of law appears in this case and that an opinion would have no precedential value.

Accordingly, and in compliance with Rule 84.16(b), the judgment is affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

604 S.W.2d 668, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-state-moctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack