Haynes v. StateHaynes v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Dowd
Mоvant appeals from the trial court’s action denying, without evidentiary hearing, his second motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 27.26 V.A.M.R. We affirm.
Movant was convicted of murder in the first degree in October, 1970 and sentenced to life imрrisonment. His conviction was affirmed on apрeal. State v. Haynes, 482 S.W.2d 444 (Mo.1972).
In December, 1973, movant filed his first motion for рostconviction relief pursuant to Rule 27.26. Counsеl for movant was appointed, and after аn evidentiary hearing, the motion was denied.
On the appeal of the first motion, movant raised two Points Relied On: (1) ineffective assistance of сounsel due to a failure to investigate and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to lay a proper foundation in order to introduce impeaching testimony. Both points werе considered on appeal, and ruled аgainst movant. The denial of the first motion was affirmеd on appeal. Haynes v. State, 534 S.W.2d 552 (Mo.App.1976).
On September 10, 1976, movant filed a second motion under Rule 27.26 again contending he was denied effective assistance оf counsel. The trial court denied movant’s second 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The trial court found that the issues presented by the second motion “were presented to the court оn the prior motion and ruled adversely to movant.”
We have examined movant’s brief filed in the first appeal and the brief filed in the case at bar. Except for two paragraphs in the statement of facts, the brief in the case at bar is аn exact, word for word duplication of the brief filed on appeal in the first 27.26 motion. The Points Rеlied On in this appeal are identical with the Points Relied On in the first appeal and decided аdversely to movant.
The trial court properly denied movant’s second motion without a heаring.
Rule 27.26(d) expressly prohibits the entertainment of suсcessive motions “where the ground presented in the subsequent application was raised аnd determined adversely to the applicant on the prior application.” A Rule 27.26 motiоn is limited to testing the validity of a sentence and is nоt to be used as a procedure to attack the results of a prior post-conviction proceeding. Duncan v. State, 524 S.W.2d 140, 142 (Mo.App.1975); Ivy v. State, 509 S.W.2d 148, 153 (Mo.App.1974).
The rule remains appliсable even if the litigation has an additional citation to offer or a different theory to suggеst. Sweazea v. State, 515 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Mo. Banc 1974). However, in the case at bar the movant has not even offered an “additional citation” or suggested “a different theory.”
The judgment is affirmed.
CLEMENS, P. J., and SMITH, J., concur.