Tammons v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tammons v. State

572 S.W.2d 876, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2859

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 26, 1978

DocketNo. 39150

StatusPublished

This text of 572 S.W.2d 876 (Tammons 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

Tammons v. State, 572 S.W.2d 876, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2859 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

CLEMENS, Judge.

Movant Clarence L. Tammons (hereafter “defendant”) has appealed from denial of his pro se Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. He had been convicted by a jury of possessing heroin and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Affirmed on appeal. State v. Tammons, 522 S.W.2d 648 (Mo.App.1975).

In denying this motion the trial court ruled Tammons had failed to allege facts entitling him to relief. No evidentiary hearing was held and no attorney was appointed. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his motion without first appointing counsel.

Rule 27.26(h) provides counsel shall be appointed for an indigent when the motion presents questions of law or issues of fact. Defendant contends it is fundamentally unfair to expect a pro se motion to be drafted with professional quality. While this same argument was persuasive to two dissenting members of the court in Loflin v. State, 492 S.W.2d 770 (Mo.1975), the majority held that counsel need not be appointed if the Rule 27.26 motion does not plead facts which would entitle movant to relief. Wallace v. State, 556 S.W.2d 471 (Mo.App.1977); Loflin, supra. We are bound by those decisions.

In his Rule 27.26 motion defendant Tam-mons alleged failure of his appointed counsel, after our adverse decision on appeal, to apply for rehearing or transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was a denial of his right to effective assistance of counsel. This claim is not cognizable under Rule 27.26 because, even if meritorious, the trial court could not give relief. In Cole v. State, 553 S.W.2d 877[9-10] (Mo.App.1977), we held that under Rule 27.26 a defendant may challenge counsel’s trial court errors only, not those on appeal. To the same effect, see Hamphill v. State, 566 S.W.2d 200[15, 16] (Mo.1978).

Judgment affirmed.

REINHARD, P. J. and GUNN, J., concur.

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

CLEMENS, Judge.

Movant Clarence L. Tammons (hereafter “defendant”) has appealed from denial of his pro se Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. He had been convicted by a jury of possessing heroin and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Affirmed on appeal. State v. Tammons, 522 S.W.2d 648 (Mo.App.1975).

In denying this motion the trial court ruled Tammons had failed to allege facts entitling him to relief. No evidentiary hearing was held and no attorney was appointed. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his motion without first appointing counsel.

Rule 27.26(h) provides counsel shall be appointed for an indigent when the motion presents questions of law or issues of fact. Defendant contends it is fundamentally unfair to expect a pro se motion to be drafted with professional quality. While this same argument was persuasive to two dissenting members of the court in Loflin v. State, 492 S.W.2d 770 (Mo.1975), the majority held that counsel need not be appointed if the Rule 27.26 motion does not plead facts which would entitle movant to relief. Wallace v. State, 556 S.W.2d 471 (Mo.App.1977); Loflin, supra. We are bound by those decisions.

In his Rule 27.26 motion defendant Tam-mons alleged failure of his appointed counsel, after our adverse decision on appeal, to apply for rehearing or transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was a denial of his right to effective assistance of counsel. This claim is not cognizable under Rule 27.26 because, even if meritorious, the trial court could not give relief. In Cole v. State, 553 S.W.2d 877[9-10] (Mo.App.1977), we held that under Rule 27.26 a defendant may challenge counsel’s trial court errors only, not those on appeal. To the same effect, see Hamphill v. State, 566 S.W.2d 200[15, 16] (Mo.1978).

Judgment affirmed.

REINHARD, P. J. and GUNN, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

572 S.W.2d 876, 1978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tammons-v-state-moctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack