Tyler v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Tyler v. State

546 S.W.2d 547, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2448

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 25, 1977

DocketNo. 37321

StatusPublished

This text of 546 S.W.2d 547 (Tyler 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

Tyler v. State, 546 S.W.2d 547, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2448 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

WEIER, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted on guilty pleas to four charges of armed robbery and sentenced on each charge to eight years imprisonment, the terms to run concurrently. He subsequently instituted post-conviction proceedings pursuant to Rule 27.26. The ruling of the reviewing court which, inter alia, set aside the judgment of conviction with respect to one of the four robbery charges, was affirmed by our Supreme Court. Tyler v. State, 485 S.W.2d 102 (Mo.1972).¹ Appellant later filed the petition for writ of error coram nobis which is the subject of this appeal. The petition, which was denied by the court below, is basically an attack upon the reviewing court’s actions in the Rule 27.26 proceeding. Appellant is attempting to demonstrate that the reviewing court set aside the wrong robbery conviction and now asks that we explore this contention.

We conclude from the record that appellant has now served the sentences assessed for these convictions. Since appellant is not in custody under the sentences he seeks to have invalidated, coram nobis, rather than a motion under Rule 27.26, would be an appropriate remedy to attack the judgments of conviction. Cook v. State, 543 S.W.2d 309, 311[2] (Mo.App.1976). However, the allegation in the instant petition which is presented for our review, that the court in the Rule 27.26 proceeding had insufficient evidence before it to determine which of the robbery charges appellant may have had a defense to, is not an attack upon the judgments of conviction and cannot be considered in a coram nobis proceeding. Laster v. State, 461 S.W.2d 839, 840-841[5] (Mo.1971); Howard v. State, 493 S.W.2d 14, 19[8] (Mo.App.1973).

The judgment of the circuit court, dismissing the petition for writ of error coram nobis, is affirmed.

DOWD and CLEMENS, JJ., concur.

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

WEIER, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted on guilty pleas to four charges of armed robbery and sentenced on each charge to eight years imprisonment, the terms to run concurrently. He subsequently instituted post-conviction proceedings pursuant to Rule 27.26. The ruling of the reviewing court which, inter alia, set aside the judgment of conviction with respect to one of the four robbery charges, was affirmed by our Supreme Court. Tyler v. State, 485 S.W.2d 102 (Mo.1972).¹ Appellant later filed the petition for writ of error coram nobis which is the subject of this appeal. The petition, which was denied by the court below, is basically an attack upon the reviewing court’s actions in the Rule 27.26 proceeding. Appellant is attempting to demonstrate that the reviewing court set aside the wrong robbery conviction and now asks that we explore this contention.

We conclude from the record that appellant has now served the sentences assessed for these convictions. Since appellant is not in custody under the sentences he seeks to have invalidated, coram nobis, rather than a motion under Rule 27.26, would be an appropriate remedy to attack the judgments of conviction. Cook v. State, 543 S.W.2d 309, 311[2] (Mo.App.1976). However, the allegation in the instant petition which is presented for our review, that the court in the Rule 27.26 proceeding had insufficient evidence before it to determine which of the robbery charges appellant may have had a defense to, is not an attack upon the judgments of conviction and cannot be considered in a coram nobis proceeding. Laster v. State, 461 S.W.2d 839, 840-841[5] (Mo.1971); Howard v. State, 493 S.W.2d 14, 19[8] (Mo.App.1973).

The judgment of the circuit court, dismissing the petition for writ of error coram nobis, is affirmed.

DOWD and CLEMENS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 S.W.2d 547, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-state-moctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack