Dixon v. State, No. 41978

Read

Notebook

No. 41978 | Mo. Ct. App. | Aug 26, 1980

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Movant Willie Dixon, hereafter defendant, appeals the post-hearing denial of his Rule 27.26 motion.

Defendant had been convicted of murder and on appeal the judgment was affirmed. His motion for re-hearing or transfer was denied. State v. Dixon, 566 S.W.2d 254" court="Mo. Ct. App." date_filed="1978-04-04" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-dixon-5049199?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5049199">566 S.W.2d 254 (Mo.App.1978).

We limit our review to the points specifically raised in the motion below1 and *783thereafter briefed on appeal.2 So considered, defendant contended below and now contends here he was denied effective assistance of counsel; this, because after the judgment was affirmed and his motion for re-hearing and/or transfer to the supreme court was denied by this court, his counsel thereafter failed to file such a motion in the supreme court.

The alleged ineffectiveness of counsel on appeal concerns a matter in the appellate court, not one ever before the trial court. For that reason the issue is not cognizable under Rule 27.26. Hemphill v. State, 566 S.W.2d 200" court="Mo." date_filed="1978-04-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hemphill-v-state-1797211?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1797211">566 S.W.2d 200[15, 16] (Mo.banc 1978).

Judgment affirmed.

DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.

. Maggard v. State, 471 S.W.2d 161" court="Mo." date_filed="1971-09-13" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/maggard-v-state-1533700?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1533700">471 S.W.2d 161[1] (Mo.1971); Johnson v. State, 463 S.W.2d 873" court="Mo." date_filed="1971-03-08" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/johnson-v-state-5036916?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5036916">463 S.W.2d 873[1] (Mo.1971).

. Camillo v. State, 555 S.W.2d 386" court="Mo. Ct. App." date_filed="1977-08-24" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/camillo-v-state-5047884?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="5047884">555 S.W.2d 386[1] (Mo.App.1977); Plant v. State, 547 S.W.2d 835" court="Mo. Ct. App." date_filed="1976-12-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/plant-v-state-2438797?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2438797">547 S.W.2d 835[1, 2] (Mo.App.1977).