Reid v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Reid v. State

877 S.W.2d 253, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 930, 1994 WL 241489

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 1994

DocketNo. 19112

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 877 S.W.2d 253 (Reid 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

Reid v. State, 877 S.W.2d 253, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 930, 1994 WL 241489 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

FLANIGAN, Presiding Judge.

Movant Dwight Reid appeals from a denial, after evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.-035¹ motion seeking to vacate a judgment and sentence based on a plea of guilty to two counts of sodomy. Movant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on each count, the sentences to be served concurrently.

Movant’s sole point is that he was entitled to relief on his motion, and the trial court erred in ruling otherwise, because his post-conviction counsel abandoned movant in that he did not obtain, until the day of the motion hearing, the transcripts of the guilty plea and sentencing hearings. For two independent reasons, this point has no merit.

Movant’s point seeks to make a claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel and is thus unreviewable. In State v. Hunter, 840 S.W.2d 850 (Mo. banc 1992), the court said, at 871-872[51-53]:

“There is no constitutional right to counsel in a post-conviction proceeding. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 2566, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991). Consequently, there is no constitutional claim to ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. Coleman, at 752, 111 S.Ct. at 2566. Claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel are categorically unreviewable. State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905 (Mo. banc 1992); Pollard v. State, 807 S.W.2d 498, 502 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 383, 116 L.Ed.2d 334 (1991). The burden of error by [254]*254post-conviction counsel falls on the shoulders of the defendant, not on the State.”

Further, the instant claim was not set forth in movant’s pro se motion or in the amended motion filed by post-conviction counsel. “Claims which were not presented to the motion court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” Amrine v. State, 785 S.W.2d 531, 535[8] (Mo. banc 1990). To similar effect see Scroggins v. State, 859 S.W.2d 704, 710[7] (Mo.App.1993).

The judgment is affirmed.

PREWITT and CROW, JJ., concur.

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