From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Glasby v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three
Oct 16, 1985
697 S.W.2d 202 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

No. 48718.

June 11, 1985. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied August 28, 1985. Application to Transfer Denied October 16, 1985.

APPEAL FROM THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WILLIAM M. CORRIGAN, J.

Debra Buie Arnold, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Leah A. Murray, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.


By this Rule 27.26 motion movant-defendant Keith B. Glasby seeks to set aside two consecutive life sentences. These were based on guilty pleas to separate charges of murder and armed criminal action. The motion court summarily denied the defendant's motion and defendant has appealed. We affirm.

We have examined the guilty plea record. Defendant, his mother and counsel participated; the trial court questioned each in detail. Defendant admitted the murder and robbery, knew of the proposed sentences and repeatedly said he was completely satisfied with his counsel. Although the court invited defendant to offer any justification for the charged offenses the defendant said he had none.

Although not pleaded in his Rule 27.26 motion defendant now seeks an evidentiary hearing on the ground his trial counsel was ineffective in that he "failed to investigate his claim that certain incriminating evidence to be used against him at trial was obtained in violation of the Juvenile Code." Defendant's brief as a whole gives no indication of what that evidence was nor what section of the juvenile code was violated. It was patently inadequate.

In Franklin v. State, 655 S.W.2d 561 [10, 11] (Mo.App. 1983) we ruled:

"The claim that an attorney's investigation of a case is inadequate must allege what specific information the attorney failed to discover, that reasonable investigation would have disclosed that information, and that the information would have aided or improved defendant's position."

To the same effect see Williams v. State, 650 S.W.2d 17 (Mo.App. 1983) and also Anderson v. State, 647 S.W.2d 883 [1, 2] (Mo.App. 1983).

The motion court did not err in summarily denying the Rule 27.26 motion.

Affirmed.

DOWD, P.J., and CRANDALL, J., concur.


Summaries of

Glasby v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three
Oct 16, 1985
697 S.W.2d 202 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

Glasby v. State

Case Details

Full title:KEITH BYRON GLASBY, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three

Date published: Oct 16, 1985

Citations

697 S.W.2d 202 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Glasby v. State

His first 27.26 hearing motion was denied. Glasby v. State, 697 S.W.2d 202 (Mo.App. 1985). In his second…