Davis v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Tate v. State

    773 S.W.2d 190 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 10 times

    We hold that the segment of movant's point relied on in the instant case purporting to assign error on the ground that the motion, files and records do not conclusively show that movant should be denied relief on his contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel presents nothing for appellate review. We have nonetheless searched the argument portion of movant's brief, a task we are not obliged to undertake, Whites v. State, 587 S.W.2d 651, 652-53[2] (Mo.App. 1979); Davis v. State, 586 S.W.2d 822, 824[4] (Mo.App. 1979), in an effort to ascertain wherein and why the files and records do not — according to movant — conclusively demonstrate he deserves no relief on his contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial. The argument mentions sundry allegations of ineffective assistance, but fails to explain wherein and why a single one is unrefuted by the files and records.

  2. Turner v. State

    669 S.W.2d 642 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 10 times

    The two points relied on in movant's brief on appeal are penned in complete disregard of the mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04(d), V.A.M.R. On an appeal from denial of a Rule 27.26 motion the points relied on must conform to the specifications of the rule [ Overall v. State, 540 S.W.2d 637, 638[1] (Mo.App. 1976)] and this court has no duty to resort to the argument section of the brief to ascertain "wherein and why" movant is claiming the court erred. Davis v. State, 586 S.W.2d 822, 824[4] (Mo.App. 1979). However, as movant was not afforded, per Rule 84.08(a), V.A.M.R., a second chance to do correctly that which he should have done in the first instance, we briefly review what his points concern.

  3. Lane v. State

    611 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 9 times

    Zinn v. State, 588 S.W.2d 177, 178[3] (Mo.App. 1979). In the argument portion of movant's brief, he asserts that he had ineffective assistance of counsel in the criminal appeal. No such claim was asserted in his Rule 27.26 motion and may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Davis v. State, 586 S.W.2d 822, 824[2] (Mo.App. 1979); Johnson v. State, 561 S.W.2d 704, 706[5] (Mo.App. 1978). Part II of the Addendum to this opinion is the order made by the trial court in denying movant's Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing.