Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

728 S.W.2d 686

Moore v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 21, 1987

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1987-04-21

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1989

1 state decisions

Relies on Fields v. State · Hirsch v. State · Taylor v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-04-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MAUS, Judge.

¶1On January 27, 1983, movant, as a result of a plea bargain, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree. § 565.004, RSMo 1978 (repealed L.1983). On April 18, 1986, he filed a pro se motion under Rule 27.26 (repealed effective January 1, 1988) seeking to set aside that plea and his sentence to life imprisonment. On the same day, the motion court, without the appointment of counsel or other proceedings, ex parte denied the motion. Movant appeals.

¶2Rule 27.26(h) provides in part: “When an indigent prisoner files a pro se motion, the court shall immediately appoint counsel to represent the prisoner.” The motion court erred when it summarily denied the motion without the appointment of counsel. “Rule 27.26(h) mandates that counsel be appointed in every 27.26 proceeding, even one initiated by a defective pro se motion, so that counsel may confer with the movant, examine his case and present every possible claim in a single proceeding.” Hirsch v. State, 698 S.W.2d 604, 605 (Mo.App.1985). See also Fields v. State, 572 S.W.2d 477 (Mo. banc 1978); Taylor v. State, 704 S.W.2d 276 (Mo.App.1986); Owens v. State, 662 S.W.2d 323 (Mo.App.1983).

¶3The judgment of the motion court denying the motion is reversed. The cause is remanded for the appointment of counsel and further proceedings in accordance with Rule 27.26, as sentence was pronounced before January 1,1988, and a motion under Rule 27.26 is pending. Rule 24.035(Z).

PREWITT, P.J., and FLANIGAN, J., concur.HOGAN, J., not participating.
/728/sw2d/686 · .json · Public domain