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)

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.