Willoughby v. State

578 S.W.2d 335, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 3153
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 26, 1979
DocketNo. KCD 29750
StatusPublished

This text of 578 S.W.2d 335 (Willoughby 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
Willoughby v. State, 578 S.W.2d 335, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 3153 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In 1973, movant (hereafter defendant) entered a plea of guilty to the offense of sodomy and was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years. Thereafter, defendant filed three successive motions for post-conviction relief, all of which were consolidated and an evidentiary hearing was granted February 25, 1977. This appeal followed the order of the trial court denying defendant’s motion. Affirmed.

Defendant’s Rule 27.26 motions all charged that trial counsel in the criminal case was inadequate. On this appeal, defendant may not prevail unless he shows that the denial of his motion by the trial court was clearly erroneous. Stewart v. State, 542 S.W.2d 544 (Mo.App.1976).

Evidence at the hearing on defendant’s motion was conflicting. While defendant testified that trial counsel had failed to interview a witness, had neglected to seek the benefit of a change of venue and had misled defendant as to the sentence which would be imposed, other evidence contradicted each of defendant’s contentions. Defendant's credibility was thereby in issue. By defendant’s admission, he had previously pleaded guilty to an earlier felony charge and, by reason of conflict between his testimony at the guilty plea hearing and the testimony he offered to support his Rule 27.26 motion, one or the other was false. The trial court was not required to believe defendant’s testimony. State v. Hurtt, 509 S.W.2d 14 (Mo.1974).

By its order, the trial court rejected defendant’s evidence as not credible. The ruling was not clearly erroneous and must be upheld. Stewart v. State, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Stewart v. State
542 S.W.2d 544 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1976)
State v. Hurtt
509 S.W.2d 14 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
578 S.W.2d 335, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 3153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willoughby-v-state-moctapp-1979.