Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

10/04/93 RONNIE LEE CAMERON v. STATE MISSOURI

October 4, 1993

RONNIE LEE CAMERON, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.



APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY. Honorable David Anderson, Judge

Shrum, Parrish, Montgomery

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shrum

The movant Ronnie Lee Cameron appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We remand to the motion court.

FACTS

The movant pled guilty to eight counts of second degree burglary and one count of first degree property damage. He was sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment on Count I, one of the burglary counts. On each of the remaining counts, he was sentenced to separate terms of five years with the sentences to be served concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentence for Count I, for a total of 10 years with the Missouri Department of Corrections.

Using Supreme Court Form 40, the movant timely filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. We quote in its entirety the movant's paragraph 8, in which he was to state concisely all grounds known to him for vacating, setting aside, or correcting his conviction and sentence:

(a) I would like to ask the court to run the to five year sentences together and or

(b) I would ask the court for 120 day shock time.

The movant left blank paragraph 9 of the standard form motion in which he was to state the facts that supported the grounds set out in paragraph 8.

The motion court appointed the state public defender's office to represent the movant, an indigent. The record reflects the following activity by appointed counsel. On September 16, 1992, an assistant state public defender entered his appearance on behalf of the movant. On October 26, 1992, appointed counsel filed the following document, entitled "Notice Of Determination Of Counsel Not To File Amended Motion And Decision To Stand On Pro Se Motion, And Request For Hearing Thereon":

Comes now Ronnie Cameron, movant herein, by and through counsel, and said counsel, after review of the Court's files in this case and trial counsel's file in the underlying criminal case, 191CF0133, determines and certifies that he is unaware of any additional claims to submit to the Court in an amended motion as contemplated by Rule 24.035, and accordingly is hereby notifying the Court of the decision to stand on the pro se motion filed herein on August 24, 1992. Further, movant respectfully requests a hearing on his said pro se motion, and findings and Conclusions deciding the issues presented in said motion and affirmatively states that his pro se motion alleges facts not refuted by the record in the underlying criminal case, entitling him to relief herein.

The court dismissed the motion without an evidentiary hearing and issued findings of fact and Conclusions of law related to the movant's claims for relief. Nothing in the record indicates the court made independent inquiry into the performances of appointed counsel and the movant.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

The question on appeal is whether the record supports a Conclusion that the movant's appointed counsel performed as required by Rule ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.