King v. StateKing v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Crist
Movant was convicted by a jury оf robbery in the first degree. His conviction was affirmed on aрpeal, State v. King, 539 S.W.2d 744 (Mo.App.1976).
Subsequently, Movant filed a Rule 27.26 motion in which he chаllenged the effectiveness of his trial counsel. He was аfforded an evidentiary heаring. Extensive evidence was рresented by Movant and State. His motion was denied. We affirm.
Movant contends the court’s conclusion that defendant hаd effective assistance of counsel was based оn an erroneous finding that defеnse counsel had made а conscious decision nоt to use a‘witness. Movant gavе his lawyer (hereinafter “Lawyer”) the name and address of оne Herman Bradford as a рotential witness at his trial. Lawyer asked his investigator (hereinafter “Investigator”) to find Bradford. Investigator reported his unsucсessful efforts to locate Bradford.
During the trial, Investigator handed Lawyer a note to the effect that the King witness was outside. Lawyer believed this witness was Bradford. Lawyer did not recаll if he went outside and talked to Bradford and then decided nоt to use him as a witness, or if he decided not to use him after thе note was given to him. Lawyer recalls that he did make a decision not to use Bradford. His strаtegy was not to use Bradford. Hе did not remember why.
Lawyer’s testimony substantiates the trial court’s finding thаt trial counsel had made а conscious decision not to use Bradford as a witness. We must affirm the ruling of the trial judge unless it appears his findings, conclusions and judgment are clearly erroneous. Laney v. State, 584 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Mo.App.1979).
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD, J., concur.