Winfield v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Winfield v. State

541 S.W.2d 572, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2806

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 14, 1976

DocketNo. 10067

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 541 S.W.2d 572 (Winfield 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

Winfield v. State, 541 S.W.2d 572, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2806 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

Movant Larry Winfield’s grounds for post-conviction relief from a sentence for rape — that his plea of guilty was involuntary and he did not have effective assistance of counsel — are refuted by his guilty plea transcript. Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. banc 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 911, 95 S.Ct. 832, 42 L.Ed.2d 841 (1975); Hogshooter v. State, 514 S.W.2d 109 (Mo. App.1974).

The trial court did not err in denying the Rule 27.26 motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

All concur.

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

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

Movant Larry Winfield’s grounds for post-conviction relief from a sentence for rape — that his plea of guilty was involuntary and he did not have effective assistance of counsel — are refuted by his guilty plea transcript. Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. banc 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 911, 95 S.Ct. 832, 42 L.Ed.2d 841 (1975); Hogshooter v. State, 514 S.W.2d 109 (Mo. App.1974).

The trial court did not err in denying the Rule 27.26 motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 S.W.2d 572, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winfield-v-state-moctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack