Rankin v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Rankin v. State

506 S.W.2d 65, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1752

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 4, 1974

DocketNo. 26665

StatusPublished

This text of 506 S.W.2d 65 (Rankin 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

Rankin v. State, 506 S.W.2d 65, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1752 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order entered in a 27.26, V.A.M.R., proceeding overruling the motion and denying the movant an evidentiary hearing. The sole point on appeal asserts that petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed, after an unsuccessful direct appeal, to proceed by certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. This ground was not set forth in the 27.26 motion, although appointed counsel had advised movant that his motion could be amended to include this claim. The issue presented is governed by the holding in Fritz v. State, 449 S.W.2d 174 (Mo.1970). An opinion in this case would have no precedential value.

The trial court judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order entered in a 27.26, V.A.M.R., proceeding overruling the motion and denying the movant an evidentiary hearing. The sole point on appeal asserts that petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed, after an unsuccessful direct appeal, to proceed by certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. This ground was not set forth in the 27.26 motion, although appointed counsel had advised movant that his motion could be amended to include this claim. The issue presented is governed by the holding in Fritz v. State, 449 S.W.2d 174 (Mo.1970). An opinion in this case would have no precedential value.

The trial court judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

506 S.W.2d 65, 1974 Mo. App. LEXIS 1752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rankin-v-state-moctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack