Riley v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Riley v. State

728 S.W.2d 300, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3956

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 16, 1987

DocketNo. 14866

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 728 S.W.2d 300 (Riley 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

Riley v. State, 728 S.W.2d 300, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3956 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

By motion filed under Rule 27.26 appellant sought to receive an order of the trial court granting him credit for time served in the State of Colorado while under a Missouri detainer. The trial court sustained respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed appellant’s motion without an evi-dentiary hearing.

Apparently a question of credit for time served may be raised in a Rule 27.26 procedure. See Hart v. State, 588 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Mo.App.1979). However, as this was at least appellant’s second motion under Rule 27.26, he was required to allege a reason or reasons which, if established by proof, would authorize a finding that mov-ant could not have previously presented this ground. Miller v. State, 704 S.W.2d 719, 720 (Mo.App.1986); Newman v. State, 703 S.W.2d 71, 72 (Mo.App.1985). Movant did not do so. Therefore, he has not shown any grounds for relief and the trial court properly dismissed his motion.

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.

By motion filed under Rule 27.26 appellant sought to receive an order of the trial court granting him credit for time served in the State of Colorado while under a Missouri detainer. The trial court sustained respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissed appellant’s motion without an evi-dentiary hearing.

Apparently a question of credit for time served may be raised in a Rule 27.26 procedure. See Hart v. State, 588 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Mo.App.1979). However, as this was at least appellant’s second motion under Rule 27.26, he was required to allege a reason or reasons which, if established by proof, would authorize a finding that mov-ant could not have previously presented this ground. Miller v. State, 704 S.W.2d 719, 720 (Mo.App.1986); Newman v. State, 703 S.W.2d 71, 72 (Mo.App.1985). Movant did not do so. Therefore, he has not shown any grounds for relief and the trial court properly dismissed his motion.

The judgment is affirmed.

HOGAN, FLANIGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

728 S.W.2d 300, 1987 Mo. App. LEXIS 3956, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riley-v-state-moctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack