From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cochran v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One
Dec 28, 1976
545 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)

Opinion

No. 38329.

December 28, 1976.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS, CARL R. GAERTNER, J.

James LeRoy Cochran, pro se.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, David L. Baylard, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, Brendan Ryan, Circuit Atty., Frederick J. Dana, Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.


Movant appeals the denial of his second Rule 27.26 motion. He seeks to set aside his conviction and ten-year sentence for armed robbery.

Movant's first two grounds concern denial of his right to a speedy trial and failure to produce a police report at his trial. Both points were raised and denied on his direct appeal. See State v. Cochran, 366 S.W.2d 360[1, 2] (Mo. 1963). They cannot be reconsidered in this post-conviction proceeding. Sweazea v. State, 515 S.W.2d 499 (Mo. 1974).

Movant's last three grounds concern identification testimony, cross examination of witnesses and jury instructions. These grounds not only concern trial errors but could have been raised in movant's earlier Rule 27.26 motion filed and denied in 1970. Movant is thus doubly precluded from raising these three grounds in a collateral attack on his conviction. Brown v. State, 492 S.W.2d 762 (Mo. 1973); Newman v. State, 481 S.W.2d 3 (Mo. 1972).

Judgment affirmed.

WEIER, P. J., and DOWD, J., concur.


Summaries of

Cochran v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One
Dec 28, 1976
545 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)
Case details for

Cochran v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES LeROY COCHRAN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One

Date published: Dec 28, 1976

Citations

545 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976)

Citing Cases

Johnson v. State

" We agree with the trial court and affirm. Grounds stated in a Rule 27.26 motion concerning matters…

Johnson v. State

Further, this point was adjudicated on appeal and cannot be reconsidered in a post-conviction proceeding.…