Tettamble v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tettamble v. State

684 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 5149

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 31, 1984

DocketNo. 48562

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 684 S.W.2d 67 (Tettamble 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

Tettamble v. State, 684 S.W.2d 67, 1984 Mo. App. LEXIS 5149 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Appeal from summary dismissal of mov-ant’s 27.26 motion. We reverse and remand.

Movant had been convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 40 years in prison. We affirmed that judgment on appeal. State v. Tettamble, 517 S.W.2d 732 (Mo.App.1974).

By his Rule 27.26 motion movant raised a host of grounds, some of which if proved might entitle him to a retrial. However the hearing court summarily denied the motion, ruling:

“Cause called; movant appears by [counsel]; state appears [by counsel]; state’s motion to dismiss is presented, argued and submitted to the court; the court being fully advised in the premises does hereby sustain state’s motion to dismiss. It is so ordered.”

Here movant claims error in the motion court’s summary dismissal of his motion under Rule 27.26(i). It requires: “The court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held....” The now challenged summary order failed to comply.

Reversed and remanded with directions either to comply with Rule 27.26(i) or grant an evidentiary hearing.

DOWD, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.

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