Williams v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Williams v. State

650 S.W.2d 17, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4399

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 1, 1983

DocketNo. 45793

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 650 S.W.2d 17 (Williams 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

Williams v. State, 650 S.W.2d 17, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4399 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Appeal from summary denial of movant-defendant’s Rule 27.26 motion. We had affirmed defendant’s robbery conviction in State v. Williams, 624 S.W.2d 127 (Mo.App.1981).

Defendant’s complaint alleges trial counsel was ineffective. To be entitled to a hearing on this a defendant must plead facts rather than conclusions; claims that counsel’s failure to present defenses must be described and shown to have been dis[18]*18coverable. Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 l.c. 411 (Mo. banc 1974). See also Greenhaw v. State, 627 S.W.2d 103[6, 7] (Mo.App.1982) holding: “The claim that an attorney’s investigation of a case is inadequate must allege what specific information the attorney failed to discover, that reasonable investigation would have disclosed that information, and that the information would have aided or improved appellant’s position.”

Here the motion court separately considered defendant’s eight claims of inadequate trial counsel, found each to be con-clusory and cited judicial authority for each denial.

Defendant was given a copy of the motion court’s memorandum, so there is no need to quote defendant’s motion or the court’s detailed memorandum.

Affirmed.

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

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

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Appeal from summary denial of movant-defendant’s Rule 27.26 motion. We had affirmed defendant’s robbery conviction in State v. Williams, 624 S.W.2d 127 (Mo.App.1981).

Defendant’s complaint alleges trial counsel was ineffective. To be entitled to a hearing on this a defendant must plead facts rather than conclusions; claims that counsel’s failure to present defenses must be described and shown to have been dis[18]*18coverable. Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 l.c. 411 (Mo. banc 1974). See also Greenhaw v. State, 627 S.W.2d 103[6, 7] (Mo.App.1982) holding: “The claim that an attorney’s investigation of a case is inadequate must allege what specific information the attorney failed to discover, that reasonable investigation would have disclosed that information, and that the information would have aided or improved appellant’s position.”

Here the motion court separately considered defendant’s eight claims of inadequate trial counsel, found each to be con-clusory and cited judicial authority for each denial.

Defendant was given a copy of the motion court’s memorandum, so there is no need to quote defendant’s motion or the court’s detailed memorandum.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 S.W.2d 17, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 4399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-moctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack