Burnside v. StateBurnside v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Turnage
Thоmas Burnside appeals the denial of his second 27.26 motion without an eviden-tiary hearing. The сontention on this appeal is that the court erred when it failed to appoint counsel upon the filing of the second 27.26 motion because the motion was filed by an indigent pro se. Affirmed.
Burnside filed a 27.26 motion seeking to overturn his conviction for kidnapping and rape and resultant sentences of 50 years for rape and 10 years for kidnapping, the sentences tо run consecutively. That motion was overruled without an evidentiary hearing and on appeal the judgment was affirmed. Burnside v. State, 552 S.W.2d 339 (Mo.App.1977).
In April, 1979, Burnside filed the present 27.26 motion. In this motion he alleged his convictiоn and sentence for kidnapping and rape was invalid because he was subjected to double jeopardy by being tried for both offenses. In his motion he requested the appointmеnt of counsel under Fields v. State, 572 S.W.2d 477 (Mo. banc 1978). The court overruled this motion without an evi-dentiary hearing.
On this aрpeal Burnside contends he was entitled to the appointment of counsel on this motiоn because the mandate of Fields is absolute and since this motion was filed after Fields the court had no choice but to appoint counsel.
Rule 27.26(d) provides that a second or successive motion shall not be entertained by the court where the ground presented is new but could have been raised in the prior motion pursuant to 27.26(c). The rule further states the burden shall be on the prisoner to establish that any new ground raised in a second motion could not have been raised by him in thе prior motion.
In this motion Burnside alleged the ground of double jeopardy was not contained in his first motion because counsel on the first motion did not inform him of the existence of this ground.
Therе is no doubt the facts were fully known to Burnside because he was well aware that he had beеn convicted of both kidnapping and rape when he filed his first 27.26 motion. His allegation in the second motion that a claim of double jeopardy was not raised in his first motion resulted from the fаilure of counsel to advise him of the existence of this ground amounts to no more than a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on the first motion. A claim of ineffectivе assistance of counsel on a previous 27.26 motion is not grounds for relief in the subsequent motiоn. Neal v. State, 569 S.W.2d 388 (Mo.App.1978). Although Burnside does not claim his own lack of knowledge as a reason for failing to allege double jeopardy in the first motion it has also been held that a lack of legal knowledge on the part of the prisoner is not a reason to excuse the failure tо present known facts in a previous motion. Patterson v. State, 571 S.W.2d 142, 143[2] (Mo.App.1978). Under either theory of whether the fаilure to allege double jeopardy in the first motion was due to the lack of knowledge оn the part of counsel or Burnside, such allegation is not sufficient to carry the burden to show that the new ground alleged in a successive motion could not have been raised in the priоr motion.
Burnside, in this case, boldly asserts that under Fields the court was required to appoint counsel because that case dоes not limit the requirement that counsel be appointed to the first motion filed by a prisoner. Burnside argues since Fields does not make this limitation, then Fields must be *159 applied to any pro se motion filed by an indigent prisoner without regаrd to whether it is the first or subsequent motion filed.
In Westmoreland v. State, 594 S.W.2d 596, n. 1 (Mo. banc 1980) the court recognized that after Fields a second motion which raised grounds repetitious to the first would be subject to summary denial. This case, decided after Fields, recognizes that after Fields Rule 27.26(d) is still viable and successive motions are subject to summary denial unless they meet the requirements of that paragraрh.
Nothing in Fields nor in 27.26(h), which was added to the rule subsequent to the decision in Fields, vitiates or in any way limits the force аnd effect of 27.26(d). This court holds that a motion under Rule 27.26 filed after Fields which is subject to summary denial under 27.26(d) mаy be dismissed without the appointment of counsel.
Burnside further contends that the successive mоtion provision of 27.26 does not apply to him because in Fields the prisoner had filed two prеvious motions under 27.26 when the Supreme Court ruled he was entitled to the appointment of counsel in his third motion. In Fields the court did not discuss 27.26(d), but apparently felt that because the first two motions had been filed pro se and had both been denied without an evidentiary hearing without any appeal having been taken, the prisoner had never had an opportunity to present his grounds fоr relief. Here, Burnside gives as his only reason for omitting double jeopardy from his first motion the failurе of his counsel to advise him of that ground. Unlike Fields Burnside alleges he had the assistance of cоunsel and he did have appellate review of his first motion. He has not shown any permissible rеason for failing to include the double jeopardy ground in his first motion. There is nothing in Fields to prevent the application of 27.26(d) to Burnside’s second motion.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.