From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harrod v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District
Aug 19, 1974
513 S.W.2d 471 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974)

Opinion

No. 9667.

August 19, 1974.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, PULASKI COUNTY, E. W. ALLISON, J.

Philip M. Moomaw, Dan L. Birdsong, Rolla, for movant-appellant.

John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Preston Dean, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.


The sufficiency of the complaint, verification of the information, and sufficiency of the trial evidence, are not subject to attack in Rule 27.26, V.A.M.R., proceedings. The judgment of the Pulaski County Circuit Court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16, V.A.M.R.

All concur.


Summaries of

Harrod v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District
Aug 19, 1974
513 S.W.2d 471 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974)
Case details for

Harrod v. State

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT DEAN HARROD, MOVANT-APPELLANT, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District

Date published: Aug 19, 1974

Citations

513 S.W.2d 471 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974)

Citing Cases

Achter v. State

A Rule 27.26 motion may not substitute for a direct appeal; neither may it be employed as a second appeal,…

Achter v. State

Any averred error committed by the trial court in failing to sustain the motion for judgment of acquittal at…