Haynes v. State

James Curtis HAYNES, Movant-Appellant v. STATE of Missouri

Haynes v. State, 561 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978)

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided: January 24, 1978
Docket: No. 38939
Judges: Clemens, McMillian, Smith
Citations: 561 S.W.2d 4501978 Mo. App. LEXIS 2800

Cited by 8

Opinion of the Court — Smith

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

SMITH, Judge.

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) prej *451 udicial 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts8

Relies on it most ⓘ

Johnson v. State615 S.W.2d 502 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)
Gawne v. State729 S.W.2d 497 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)
McDonald v. State758 S.W.2d 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)
Hudson v. State612 S.W.2d 375 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980)
Huston v. State679 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984)
Fowler v. State588 S.W.2d 249 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979)

Most recent

McDonald v. State758 S.W.2d 101 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988)
Gawne v. State729 S.W.2d 497 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)
Huston v. State679 S.W.2d 408 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984)
Pointer v. State641 S.W.2d 448 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)
Johnson v. State615 S.W.2d 502 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)
Haynes v. State612 S.W.2d 858 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Smith v. State, 513 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. 1974)	171
	State v. Haynes, 510 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. 1974)	8

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list