Reed v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Reed v. State

715 S.W.2d 24, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 4584

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 22, 1986

DocketNo. 14548

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 715 S.W.2d 24 (Reed 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

Reed v. State, 715 S.W.2d 24, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 4584 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Movant’s motion under Rule 27.26 was denied without an evidentiary hearing. He appeals, contending that the dismissal was improper because his motion alleged faces stating that he was sentenced as a persist ent offender based upon a conviction which was invalid because he was not represented by counsel.

Movant pled guilty to charges of burglary and of stealing and was sentenced as a persistent offender. During the plea hearing movant acknowledged that he had been convicted of two prior felonies and, upon inquiry of the trial judge, stated that he was represented by attorneys in both proceedings.

A Rule 27.26 movant must plead facts entitling movant to relief and “must [25]*25show that such factual allegations are not refuted by facts elicited at the guilty plea hearing.” Rice v. State, 585 S.W.2d 488, 492 (Mo. banc 1979). See also Green v. State, 708 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Mo.App.1986). An evidentiary hearing is required on a 27.26 motion only if the motion alleges facts, not conclusions, which warrant relief and raise matters that are not refuted by the files and records of the case. Murphy v. State, 636 S.W.2d 699, 702 (Mo.App.1982).

Here, the facts upon which mov-ant’s motion is based are refuted by his statements at the guilty plea hearing. Consequently, the trial court properly denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.

The judgment is affirmed.

HOGAN, FLANIGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Movant’s motion under Rule 27.26 was denied without an evidentiary hearing. He appeals, contending that the dismissal was improper because his motion alleged faces stating that he was sentenced as a persist ent offender based upon a conviction which was invalid because he was not represented by counsel.

Movant pled guilty to charges of burglary and of stealing and was sentenced as a persistent offender. During the plea hearing movant acknowledged that he had been convicted of two prior felonies and, upon inquiry of the trial judge, stated that he was represented by attorneys in both proceedings.

A Rule 27.26 movant must plead facts entitling movant to relief and “must [25]*25show that such factual allegations are not refuted by facts elicited at the guilty plea hearing.” Rice v. State, 585 S.W.2d 488, 492 (Mo. banc 1979). See also Green v. State, 708 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Mo.App.1986). An evidentiary hearing is required on a 27.26 motion only if the motion alleges facts, not conclusions, which warrant relief and raise matters that are not refuted by the files and records of the case. Murphy v. State, 636 S.W.2d 699, 702 (Mo.App.1982).

Here, the facts upon which mov-ant’s motion is based are refuted by his statements at the guilty plea hearing. Consequently, the trial court properly denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.

The judgment is affirmed.

HOGAN, FLANIGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

715 S.W.2d 24, 1986 Mo. App. LEXIS 4584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-state-moctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack