Pool v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Pool v. State

743 S.W.2d 104, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 6, 1988 WL 526

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 8, 1988

DocketNo. 15145

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 743 S.W.2d 104 (Pool 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

Pool v. State, 743 S.W.2d 104, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 6, 1988 WL 526 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

flanigan; Judge.

Movant Frank Pool appeals from a denial, without evidentiary hearing,, of his Rule 27.26¹ motion to set aside a judgment and sentence for first degree murder, (§ 565.-003 RSMo 1978). The conviction was based on a plea of guilty. Later movant filed a Rule 27.26 motion, (“the first motion”), which was denied after evidentiary hearing. Denial of that motion was affirmed by this court. Pool v. State, 670 S.W.2d 210 (Mo.App.1984).

The instant motion was filed on June 6, 1986. On June 9,1986, the public defender of the circuit was appointed to represent movant in the instant proceeding. Later the state filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court sustained the state’s motion.

Movant’s first point is that he was entitled to relief on his instant (second) motion because of certain alleged deficiencies on the part of the public defender in representing movant in the trial court on the instant motion.

[105]*105“[Proceedings under Rule 27.26 must be directed to defects which led to the original sentencing.” Williams v. State, 507 S.W.2d 664, 666[6] (Mo.App.1974), quoted with approval in Brauch v. State, 653 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Mo. banc 1983). In Adail v. State, 612 S.W.2d 6 (Mo.App.1980), mov-ant, on appeal from a denial of his Rule 27.26 motion, sought to challenge the conduct of his counsel in representing him on that motion in the trial court. Rejecting that challenge, the court of appeals said, at p. 8: “A Rule 27.26 proceeding may only be employed to attack the validity of a conviction and sentence. It cannot be used to question the result of a post-conviction proceeding. Neal v. State, 569 S.W.2d 388 (Mo.App.1978)." Movant's first point has no merit.

Movant’s second point is that he was entitled to relief on his instant motion, and the trial court erred in ruling otherwise, because he was rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the entry of his plea of guilty. The same ground for relief was alleged in movant’s first motion and was ruled adversely to him. This court, as previously stated, affirmed that ruling.

The trial court in the instant proceeding acted properly in not entertaining the second motion for relief because the ground presented in the second motion was raised and determined adversely to movant on the first motion. Rule 27.26(d). See Lindner v. State, 676 S.W.2d 299, 300[1] (Mo.App.1984), where, on similar facts, movant’s second motion was held to present no justi-ciable issue. Movant’s second point has no merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

PREWITT, P.J., and HOGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

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

flanigan; Judge.

Movant Frank Pool appeals from a denial, without evidentiary hearing,, of his Rule 27.26¹ motion to set aside a judgment and sentence for first degree murder, (§ 565.-003 RSMo 1978). The conviction was based on a plea of guilty. Later movant filed a Rule 27.26 motion, (“the first motion”), which was denied after evidentiary hearing. Denial of that motion was affirmed by this court. Pool v. State, 670 S.W.2d 210 (Mo.App.1984).

The instant motion was filed on June 6, 1986. On June 9,1986, the public defender of the circuit was appointed to represent movant in the instant proceeding. Later the state filed a motion to dismiss and the trial court sustained the state’s motion.

Movant’s first point is that he was entitled to relief on his instant (second) motion because of certain alleged deficiencies on the part of the public defender in representing movant in the trial court on the instant motion.

[105]*105“[Proceedings under Rule 27.26 must be directed to defects which led to the original sentencing.” Williams v. State, 507 S.W.2d 664, 666[6] (Mo.App.1974), quoted with approval in Brauch v. State, 653 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Mo. banc 1983). In Adail v. State, 612 S.W.2d 6 (Mo.App.1980), mov-ant, on appeal from a denial of his Rule 27.26 motion, sought to challenge the conduct of his counsel in representing him on that motion in the trial court. Rejecting that challenge, the court of appeals said, at p. 8: “A Rule 27.26 proceeding may only be employed to attack the validity of a conviction and sentence. It cannot be used to question the result of a post-conviction proceeding. Neal v. State, 569 S.W.2d 388 (Mo.App.1978)." Movant's first point has no merit.

Movant’s second point is that he was entitled to relief on his instant motion, and the trial court erred in ruling otherwise, because he was rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in connection with the entry of his plea of guilty. The same ground for relief was alleged in movant’s first motion and was ruled adversely to him. This court, as previously stated, affirmed that ruling.

The trial court in the instant proceeding acted properly in not entertaining the second motion for relief because the ground presented in the second motion was raised and determined adversely to movant on the first motion. Rule 27.26(d). See Lindner v. State, 676 S.W.2d 299, 300[1] (Mo.App.1984), where, on similar facts, movant’s second motion was held to present no justi-ciable issue. Movant’s second point has no merit.

The judgment is affirmed.

PREWITT, P.J., and HOGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

743 S.W.2d 104, 1988 Mo. App. LEXIS 6, 1988 WL 526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pool-v-state-moctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack