Harris v. StateHarris v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hamilton
Mоvant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Following severance of charges, two juries found Movant guilty of two cоunts of burglary and one count of stealing. After the first trial, the trial court sentencеd Movant to consecutive terms of twelve years each for one count of second degree burglary and one count of felony stealing. After the second trial, the trial court sentenced Movant to a term of twelve years for second degree burglary, to be served concurrently with the earlier sentence. This court affirmed the convictions on appeal. State v. Harris, 669 S.W.2d 579 (Mo.App.1984). Movant filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion on April 5, 1988. Following his appointment by the motion court, counsel for Movant filed an amended motion on July 8, 1988. On January 18, 1989, thе motion court denied the Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing.
Appellаte review of a 29.15 motion is limited to a determination of whether the findings and cоnclusions of the trial court are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j); Moton v. State, 772 S.W.2d 689, 691 (Mo.App.1989). Thе findings, conclusions, and order of the trial court are clearly erroneоus only if a review of the entire record leaves the appellatе court with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Id.
Moreоver, to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, Movant must allege facts, not conclusions, that are unrefuted by the record and that result in prejudice. Troupe v. State, 766 S.W.2d 722, 723 (Mo.App.1989) (citing Chapman v. State, 720 S.W.2d 17, 18 (Mo.App.1986)).
*701In his first point Movant contends his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to persuade thе trial court to change venue to a location outside the circuit and in withdrawing Movant’s motion for a change of venue. The motion court found this contention without merit because a decision not to seek a change of venue is a tactical decision demonstrating no incompetency unlеss manifestly wrong. Fitzpatrick v. State, 578 S.W.2d 339, 340 (Mo.App.1979).
The record here fails to support Movant’s first point. At the hearing on pre-trial motions on December 6, 1982, Movant agreed to the decision to withdraw his motion for change of venue. The motion court, therefore, сorrectly found that Mov-ant could not “simply withdraw his motion for change of venuе and subsequently argue that his lawyer was ineffective and the trial judge denied him due рrocess.”
Movant’s second and fourth points, asserting that his trial counsel was inеffective for failing to call witnesses favorable to Movant and asserting that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to represent himself, were both raised аnd decided on direct appeal. Harris, 669 S.W.2d 579. A motion for post-conviction rеlief cannot serve “as a vehicle for a second appellаte review and issues decided in direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a post-conviction proceeding.” O’Neal v. State, 766 S.W.2d 91, 92 (Mo. banc 1989) (citing Armbruster v. State, 686 S.W.2d 519 (Mo.App.1985)). Points two and four are denied.
In his third point, Movant asserts the trial court violated his constitutional rights when it sentenced him to consecutive рrison terms because the record contains neither evidence nor а finding by the trial court to show that consecutive sentences were imposed as a matter of the trial court’s discretion. Since this point involves a question of law rather than fact, it can be decided without an evidentiary hearing. See Thomas v. State, 605 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Mo. banc 1980). Movant relies on State v. Baker, 524 S.W.2d 122 (Mо. banc 1975), which held that mandatory consecutive sentences imposed рursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
SIMON, C.J., and DOWD, J., concur.