Wood v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Wood v. State

853 S.W.2d 369, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 600, 1993 WL 128191

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 27, 1993

DocketNo. 62566

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 853 S.W.2d 369 (Wood 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

Wood v. State, 853 S.W.2d 369, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 600, 1993 WL 128191 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

CRAHAN, Judge.

Lee Wood (“movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm.

On August 15, 1988, movant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to burglary in the second degree. The trial court sentenced movant to a term of five years imprisonment. The trial court subsequently placed movant on probation. On January 30,1992, movant’s case was called for a probation revocation hearing.¹ Movant waived his right to a revocation hearing and confessed to violating the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked mov-ant’s probation and ordered that the sentence of five years be imposed with credit given for the sixty days movant spent in jail awaiting his probation revocation hearing.

[370]*370On March 18,1992, movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion. The court appointed counsel for movant and on May 26, 1992, an amended motion was filed. In the motions, movant alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his probation revocation hearing because his attorney told him that if he waived his probation hearing he would receive credit for the two years and nine months he had spent on probation. The trial court, without an evidentiary hearing, denied mov-ant’s motion. The court stated that a Rule 24.035 motion is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the effectiveness of counsel at a probation revocation hearing, citing Lane v. State, 710 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Mo.App.1986).

Appellate review of the motion court’s action on a motion filed under Rule 24.035 is limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j). Cobb v. State, 787 S.W.2d 317, 318 (Mo.App.1990). The findings and conclusions of the motion court will be deemed clearly erroneous only if a review of the entire record leaves the reviewing court with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Id.

In his sole point on appeal, movant claims that a challenge to an attorney’s performance in a probation hearing is cognizable under Rule 24.035 because such an allegation goes to the legality of movant’s commitment to the department of corrections. Movant asserts that this is the very type of error Rule 24.035 was created to remedy. We disagree.

Rule 24.035 provides in pertinent part: A person convicted of a felony on a plea of guilty and delivered to the custody of the department of corrections who claims that the judgment of conviction or sentence imposed violate the constitution or laws of this state or the constitution of the United States, that the court imposing the sentence was without jurisdiction to do so, or that the sentence imposed was in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by law may seek relief in the sentencing court pursuant to the provisions of this Rule 24.035. This Rule 24.-035 provides the exclusive procedure by which such person may seek relief in the sentencing court for the claims enumerated. The procedure before the trial court is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure insofar as applicable.

Rule 24.035 allows only challenges to the validity of judgments of conviction or sentences, and then only on specified grounds. Solomon v. State, 821 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Mo.App.1992). Here, movant attacks neither his conviction nor his sentence. Rather, movant attacks the legality of the order revoking his probation.

A motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment or sentence is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the effectiveness of counsel at a probation revocation hearing. Lane, 710 S.W.2d at 354-55. Movant correctly observes that Lane involved a Rule 27.26 motion.² However, this court has previously determined that the adoption of Rule 24.035 in place of Rule 27.26 does not change the result. Baugh v. State, 759 S.W.2d 882, 883 (Mo.App.1988). Thus the trial court did not clearly err in dismissing movant’s motion.

CARL R. GAERTER, P.J., and CRANE, J., concur.

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

CRAHAN, Judge.

Lee Wood (“movant”) appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm.

On August 15, 1988, movant pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to burglary in the second degree. The trial court sentenced movant to a term of five years imprisonment. The trial court subsequently placed movant on probation. On January 30,1992, movant’s case was called for a probation revocation hearing.¹ Movant waived his right to a revocation hearing and confessed to violating the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked mov-ant’s probation and ordered that the sentence of five years be imposed with credit given for the sixty days movant spent in jail awaiting his probation revocation hearing.

[370]*370On March 18,1992, movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion. The court appointed counsel for movant and on May 26, 1992, an amended motion was filed. In the motions, movant alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his probation revocation hearing because his attorney told him that if he waived his probation hearing he would receive credit for the two years and nine months he had spent on probation. The trial court, without an evidentiary hearing, denied mov-ant’s motion. The court stated that a Rule 24.035 motion is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the effectiveness of counsel at a probation revocation hearing, citing Lane v. State, 710 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Mo.App.1986).

Appellate review of the motion court’s action on a motion filed under Rule 24.035 is limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j). Cobb v. State, 787 S.W.2d 317, 318 (Mo.App.1990). The findings and conclusions of the motion court will be deemed clearly erroneous only if a review of the entire record leaves the reviewing court with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Id.

In his sole point on appeal, movant claims that a challenge to an attorney’s performance in a probation hearing is cognizable under Rule 24.035 because such an allegation goes to the legality of movant’s commitment to the department of corrections. Movant asserts that this is the very type of error Rule 24.035 was created to remedy. We disagree.

Rule 24.035 provides in pertinent part: A person convicted of a felony on a plea of guilty and delivered to the custody of the department of corrections who claims that the judgment of conviction or sentence imposed violate the constitution or laws of this state or the constitution of the United States, that the court imposing the sentence was without jurisdiction to do so, or that the sentence imposed was in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by law may seek relief in the sentencing court pursuant to the provisions of this Rule 24.035. This Rule 24.-035 provides the exclusive procedure by which such person may seek relief in the sentencing court for the claims enumerated. The procedure before the trial court is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure insofar as applicable.

Rule 24.035 allows only challenges to the validity of judgments of conviction or sentences, and then only on specified grounds. Solomon v. State, 821 S.W.2d 133, 135 (Mo.App.1992). Here, movant attacks neither his conviction nor his sentence. Rather, movant attacks the legality of the order revoking his probation.

A motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment or sentence is not the proper procedure by which to challenge the effectiveness of counsel at a probation revocation hearing. Lane, 710 S.W.2d at 354-55. Movant correctly observes that Lane involved a Rule 27.26 motion.² However, this court has previously determined that the adoption of Rule 24.035 in place of Rule 27.26 does not change the result. Baugh v. State, 759 S.W.2d 882, 883 (Mo.App.1988). Thus the trial court did not clearly err in dismissing movant’s motion.

CARL R. GAERTER, P.J., and CRANE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

853 S.W.2d 369, 1993 Mo. App. LEXIS 600, 1993 WL 128191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wood-v-state-moctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack