Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division FiveMar 20, 1990
786 S.W.2d 212 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Thurman v. State

    …The rule prohibiting successive motions has been considered and upheld. See Bandy v. State, 847 S.W.2d 93, 94…

lock 1 Citing casekeyboard_arrow_right

No. 57074.

March 20, 1990.


Steven E. Jordon, Public Defender, Farmington, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Appellant, Robert W. Lohman, appeals from the motion court's dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion. We affirm.

Lohman pleaded guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On September 9, 1985, appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 27.26. The motion was denied on February 18, 1987, by the motion court without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant unsuccessfully appealed the denial to this court. Lohman v. State, 737 S.W.2d 524 (Mo.App. 1987).

On June 9, 1988, Lohman filed a second post-conviction motion for relief, this time under Rule 24.035. The motion court dismissed appellant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. This appeal follows.

Appellant claims that the motion court erred in dismissing the 24.035 motion because appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel and was thereby prejudiced in rendering a guilty plea that was not voluntarily and intelligently made.

Under Rule 24.035 successive motions for post-conviction relief are precluded from consideration by circuit courts. Rule 24.035 provides that "[t]he circuit court shall not entertain successive motions." Rule 24.035(k). This court has held a postconviction motion brought subsequent to the denial of a 27.26 motion is a successive motion for the purposes of 24.035(k). McCabe v. State, 768 S.W.2d 619, 620 (Mo.App. 1989) (citing, Hutchins v. State, 761 S.W.2d 761, 762 (Mo.App. 1988)). This language in Rule 24.035(k) relating to successive motions is unqualified. Jackson v. State, 772 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Mo.App. 1989). Therefore, since appellant's instant motion is a successive motion, the provision of 24.035(k) precludes a motion court's consideration of it. The motion court properly dismissed the motion.

Judgement affirmed.

SIMON, C.J., and JOSEPH J. SIMEONE, Senior Judge, concur.

An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.