Dеfendant, a prisoner in the Missouri State Penitentiary, has appealed from the order and judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis overruling his motion to vacate a prior judgment оf that court wherein he was adjudged guilty of robbery in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of 15 years. Defendant's conviction was affirmed upоn appeal by an opinion of this court adopted June 9, 1958. State v. Childers, Mo.Sup.,
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for the reason that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The judgment appealed from was entered on October 27, 1958, and the notice of appeal was filed on December 19, 1958. Howevеr, respondent was apparently not advised of the fact that the notice of аppeal was filed in accordance with leave granted by this court in a special order of appeal. The motion to dismiss is therefore overruled.
The relief sought by the instant motion is based solely upon allegations of error in regard to the instructions given in the trial. Specifically, it is alleged that the instructions did not require the jury to find all of the essential elements of the crime.
The trial court overruled the defendant’s motion without granting a hearing thereon. No error was committed in that regard because the motion, on its face, disclosed that no claim for relief was stated therein. In that situation a hearing is not required. State v. Ninemires, Mo.Sup.,
• We recently stated that “Rule 27.26 affords a prisoner a сonvenient means for a direct attack
on
the judgment of conviction by motion in the original proceeding. The attack is governed by the general principles appliсable to habeas corpus proceedings within the grounds specified in Rule 27.26, which lie only where the sentence is void or otherwise subject to collateral
*45
attack.” State v. Cerny,
The contention in defendant’s motion that the instructions were incomplete аnd inadequate obviously relates to trial errors. If defendant desired a review of the sufficiency of the instructions he should have made proper complaint regarding samе in his motion for new trial, in which event we would have decided his contentions when the case was here on appeal from the original judgment of conviction. Rule 27.26 does not afford a basis for the review of trial errors of the nature alleged in the motion. Erroneоus instructions would not void the judgment nor subject it to collateral attack. State v. Rutledge, Mo.Sup.,
In a reply brief (no original brief was filed) defendant, pro se, points out that he was rеpresented in the trial by court-appointed counsel and that, in the motion for new trial, his attorney did not specify, with particularity, the grounds of his complaint concerning the instructions and for that reason this court refused to review that assignment upon appeal. He states that since “this was the fault of this court-appointed attorney, the Circuit Court аnd the State would surely want to accept some of the responsibility in failing [sic] to appoint an attorney who overlooked errors in the appellant’s trial. And surely the Stаte and the Circuit Court would not object if the appellant tried to correct an еrror by using Missouri Supreme Court Rule 27.26 when they were partly to blame because this was not brought uр in the first appeal.”
In determining similar contentions this court has consistently followed the rulе that “negligence or want of skill of counsel affords no ground for the reversal of even a criminal case [State v. Dreher,
The judgment is affirmed.
The foregoing opinion by HOLMAN, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.