Simmons v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Simmons v. State

657 S.W.2d 958, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4449

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 6, 1983

DocketNo. 46137

StatusPublished

This text of 657 S.W.2d 958 (Simmons 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

Simmons v. State, 657 S.W.2d 958, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4449 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the trial court’s denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentia-ry hearing. He was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, § 565.004, RSMo 1978, and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. See, State v. Simmons, 602 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.App.1980).

Movant’s sole point of error on appeal reads as follows: “The court erred in overruling movant’s motion to vacate in that claims raised in the motion stated facts which, if proven, would have entitled mov-ant to relief thereby requiring an evidentia-ry hearing.” We find this Point Relied On indistinguishable from the Point Relied On in Jones v. State, 625 S.W.2d 702 (Mo.App.1981). Since the point does not specify wherein and why the trial court erred, nothing has been preserved for review. Rule 84.04(d).

Our review of the record leads us to conclude the trial court’s denial of the Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing did not result in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

CRIST, Judge.

Movant appeals the trial court’s denial of his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentia-ry hearing. He was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, § 565.004, RSMo 1978, and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. See, State v. Simmons, 602 S.W.2d 13 (Mo.App.1980).

Movant’s sole point of error on appeal reads as follows: “The court erred in overruling movant’s motion to vacate in that claims raised in the motion stated facts which, if proven, would have entitled mov-ant to relief thereby requiring an evidentia-ry hearing.” We find this Point Relied On indistinguishable from the Point Relied On in Jones v. State, 625 S.W.2d 702 (Mo.App.1981). Since the point does not specify wherein and why the trial court erred, nothing has been preserved for review. Rule 84.04(d).

Our review of the record leads us to conclude the trial court’s denial of the Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing did not result in manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice.

Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 S.W.2d 958, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmons-v-state-moctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack