Pittman v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pittman v. State

775 S.W.2d 339, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1202, 1989 WL 95614

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 22, 1989

DocketNo. 16023

StatusPublished

This text of 775 S.W.2d 339 (Pittman 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

Pittman v. State, 775 S.W.2d 339, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1202, 1989 WL 95614 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

MAUS, Judge.

A jury found movant Daniel Pittman guilty of three counts of sodomy. He was senteqced to imprisonment for terms of five years, five years and ten years, to run concurrently. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. State v. Pittman, 731 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.App.1987).

His motion under Rule 27.26¹ to set aside those convictions and sentences was denied after an evidentiary hearing. He appeals from that denial.

The following is the movant’s sole point on appeal. “The hearing court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that appellant had been adequately represented by trial defense attorney.” This point presents nothing for appellate review. Movant’s appeal is'properly denied on that basis. Forshee v. State, 763 S.W.2d 352 (Mo.App.1988).

Moreover, consideration of the record and movant’s argument does not aid him. The only assertion in his motion and m the evidence that even approaches a ground for relief is his counsel’s failure to interview and call certain witnesses. Mov-ant testified he gave the names of several potential witnesses. He also said that “A. ... The relatives who were with me, who were expecting to testify, were told, ‘Don’t worry about it. We’ll get to you tomorrow.’ ...” The underlying criminal case was a one-day trial presided over by circuit judge A.F. Turner.

Counsel testified concerning his preparation. He stated that he interviewed the possible witnesses known to him or explained why he did not. He categorically denied the above assertions of movant.

Movant’s testimony also included the following. “A. ... A1 Turner did call me at my home and asked me to run his campaign, ...” Judge Turner denied this assertion. He added, “A. ... I might possibly have talked to Mr. Pittman, but I wouldn’t have been too interested in getting Mr. Pittman on board with my campaign because he was a relatively newcomer there_” The motion court was entitled to reject the testimony of movant. Thomas v. State, 759 S.W.2d 622 (Mo.App.1988).

The motion court found that movant’s able and experienced “defense counsel effectively and aggressively represented him....” That finding is supported by the record. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed.

FLANIGAN, P.J., and PREWITT, J., concur.

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

MAUS, Judge.

A jury found movant Daniel Pittman guilty of three counts of sodomy. He was senteqced to imprisonment for terms of five years, five years and ten years, to run concurrently. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. State v. Pittman, 731 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.App.1987).

His motion under Rule 27.26¹ to set aside those convictions and sentences was denied after an evidentiary hearing. He appeals from that denial.

The following is the movant’s sole point on appeal. “The hearing court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that appellant had been adequately represented by trial defense attorney.” This point presents nothing for appellate review. Movant’s appeal is'properly denied on that basis. Forshee v. State, 763 S.W.2d 352 (Mo.App.1988).

Moreover, consideration of the record and movant’s argument does not aid him. The only assertion in his motion and m the evidence that even approaches a ground for relief is his counsel’s failure to interview and call certain witnesses. Mov-ant testified he gave the names of several potential witnesses. He also said that “A. ... The relatives who were with me, who were expecting to testify, were told, ‘Don’t worry about it. We’ll get to you tomorrow.’ ...” The underlying criminal case was a one-day trial presided over by circuit judge A.F. Turner.

Counsel testified concerning his preparation. He stated that he interviewed the possible witnesses known to him or explained why he did not. He categorically denied the above assertions of movant.

Movant’s testimony also included the following. “A. ... A1 Turner did call me at my home and asked me to run his campaign, ...” Judge Turner denied this assertion. He added, “A. ... I might possibly have talked to Mr. Pittman, but I wouldn’t have been too interested in getting Mr. Pittman on board with my campaign because he was a relatively newcomer there_” The motion court was entitled to reject the testimony of movant. Thomas v. State, 759 S.W.2d 622 (Mo.App.1988).

The motion court found that movant’s able and experienced “defense counsel effectively and aggressively represented him....” That finding is supported by the record. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed.

FLANIGAN, P.J., and PREWITT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

775 S.W.2d 339, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1202, 1989 WL 95614, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittman-v-state-moctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack