From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haynes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One
Mar 13, 1978
561 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)

Opinion

No. 38939.

January 24, 1978. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied February 14, 1978. Application to Transfer Denied March 13, 1978.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, HAROLD L. SATZ, J.

Robert C. Babione, Public Defender, James B. Ashwell, Robert O'Blennis, Asst. Public Defenders, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.

John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, John M. Morris, J. Michael Davis, Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., Nels C. Moss, Jr., Asst. Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.


Movant appeals from the action of the trial court in denying his motion to set aside judgment and sentence filed pursuant to Rule 27.26. Movant was tried and convicted of murder, first degree, and attempted robbery in 1973 and sentenced to life imprisonment and five years imprisonment. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. State v. Haynes, 510 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. 1974).

In his motion Haynes alleged (1)ineffective assistance of counsel, (2) error in the trial instructions, (3) insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and (4) prejudicial argument by the prosecutor. Following an evidentiary hearing at which movant presented evidence only as to ineffective assistance of counsel, the trial court denied his motion. On appeal Haynes raises two points, i.e.: (1) the court erred in its finding that movant had failed to carry his burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) that the court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the other three grounds alleged in his motion.

Our review of the record convinces us that the court's finding on the counsel question was supported by the evidence. The court did not "credit movant's testimony." It found that movant's attorney "made effective preparation for trial" and that the matters complained of by movant did not prejudice movant's defense. The record supports these findings.

The other three matters all involved trial errors and were not properly cognizable in a 27.26 proceeding. Additionally, movant presented no evidence to support them. Under these circumstances we find no error in the failure of the trial court to make specific findings and conclusions concerning those allegations. Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. 1974).

Judgment affirmed.

CLEMENS, P. J., and McMILLIAN, J., concur.


Summaries of

Haynes v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One
Mar 13, 1978
561 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)
Case details for

Haynes v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAMES CURTIS HAYNES, MOVANT-APPELLANT, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Mar 13, 1978

Citations

561 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)

Citing Cases

Pointer v. State

Movant prevailed on his second ground for relief and does not request we review it. His third was that the…

McDonald v. State

No error will result, however, for failure to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on claims that are…