From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manning-El v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Dec 15, 1987
740 S.W.2d 312 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)

Summary

In Manning-El v. State, 740 S.W.2d 312 (Mo.App. 1987), a prisoner seeking post-conviction relief pled that the lawyer who represented him in the trial court failed to interview two alibi witnesses who at the time of trial were known, available, and willing to testify.

Summary of this case from Blackmon v. State

Opinion

No. 52758.

October 6, 1987. Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied November 6, 1987. Application to Transfer Denied December 15, 1987.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MICHAEL F. GODFREY, J.

Dave C. Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Byrona J. Kincanon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.


Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 27.26 motion. That motion represented movant's second attempt to vacate two convictions for first degree robbery. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Manning, 634 S.W.2d 504 (Mo.App. 1982). We affirm.

Movant's first Rule 27.26 motion was denied on February 11, 1986; he did not appeal On March 3, 1986, movant filed a second pro se Rule 27.26 motion. Appointed counsel filed an amended motion asserting ineffective assistance of counsel in two respects; failing to preserve the objection to some evidence and failing to interview two witnesses. The court denied the motion on November 25, 1986, without an evidentiary hearing.

Movant asserts it was error to deny his Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Movant alleges he pled facts which if proven would warrant relief. In his amended motion movant pled trial counsel failed to interview two alibi witnesses who "at the time of trial, were known, available, and willing to testify." Movant, however, failed to allege he informed trial counsel of the existence of those two witnesses or that he provided counsel with addresses for them. Counsel cannot be expected to interview witnesses he does not know exist. Boyet v. State, 671 S.W.2d 417, 418 [3] (Mo.App. 1984). Movant's motion which failed to allege counsel was informed about the alibi witnesses did not plead facts which if proven would warrant relief. McKinney v. State, 634 S.W.2d 537, 538 [2] (Mo.App. 1982).

Judgment affirmed.

SATZ, P.J., and KELLY, J., concur.


Summaries of

Manning-El v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One
Dec 15, 1987
740 S.W.2d 312 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)

In Manning-El v. State, 740 S.W.2d 312 (Mo.App. 1987), a prisoner seeking post-conviction relief pled that the lawyer who represented him in the trial court failed to interview two alibi witnesses who at the time of trial were known, available, and willing to testify.

Summary of this case from Blackmon v. State
Case details for

Manning-El v. State

Case Details

Full title:CALVIN MANNING-EL, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Dec 15, 1987

Citations

740 S.W.2d 312 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Blackmon v. State

Nowhere in the amended motion or in the document identified as the pro se motion that preceded the amended…

State v. Duckett

Likewise, it is not ineffective assistance for counsel to fail to investigate witnesses whom he does not know…