Missouri Court of Appeals, 1980

Dixon v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided August 26, 1980 · Clemens, Crist, Dowd, Reinhard

604 S.W.2d 782; 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3479 (South Western Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Munoz v. State (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)
Lawrence v. State (Mo. Ct. App. 1983)
Willis v. State (Mo. Ct. App. 1982)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Movant Willie Dixon, hereafter defendant, appeals the post-hearing denial of his Rule 27.26 motion.

Defendant had been convicted of murder and on appeal the judgment was affirmed. His motion for re-hearing or transfer was denied. State v. Dixon, 566 S.W.2d 254 (Mo.App. 1978).

We limit our review to the points specifically raised in the motion below1 and *783thereafter briefed on appeal.2 So considered, defendant contended below and now contends here he was denied effective assistance of counsel; this, because after the judgment was affirmed and his motion for re-hearing and/or transfer to the supreme court was denied by this court, his counsel thereafter failed to file such a motion in the supreme court.

The alleged ineffectiveness of counsel on appeal concerns a matter in the appellate court, not one ever before the trial court. For that reason the issue is not cognizable under Rule 27.26. Hemphill v. State, 566 S.W.2d 200[15, 16] (Mo.banc 1978).

Judgment affirmed.

DOWD, P. J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.

. Maggard v. State, 471 S.W.2d 161[1] (Mo. 1971); Johnson v. State, 463 S.W.2d 873[1] (Mo. 1971).

. Camillo v. State, 555 S.W.2d 386[1] (Mo.App. 1977); Plant v. State, 547 S.W.2d 835[1, 2] (Mo.App. 1977).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.