# Sanders v. State

> Supreme Court of Missouri · October 13, 1987 · 738 S.W.2d 856

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9666753

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert SANDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** October 13, 1987
- **Citations:** 738 S.W.2d 856; 1987 Mo. LEXIS 344
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Donnelly
- **Judges:** Billings, Robertson, Rendlen, Higgins, Blackmar, Donnelly, Welliver
- **Cited by:** 610 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9666753

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that counsel’s decision not to conduct further interviews with a potential witness was reasonable and that the movant was not prejudiced
- noting that defendant's burden to overcome the presumption of effectiveness is heavy
- noting that a movant’s burden to overcome the presumption of effectiveness is heavy

## Opinion text

DONNELLY, Judge,
dissenting.
The Constitution of Missouri provides “[t]hat in criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend, in person and by counsel * * Mo. Const, art. I, § 18(a) (emphasis added). This constitutional provision was intended to assure a person accused in Missouri “that fair and impartial trial guaranteed by the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and laws of our State.” State v. Bunton, 312 Mo. 655, 662 , 280 S.W. 1040, 1042 (1926). 1
The essential issue in this case is whether appellant was accorded a fair and impartial trial.
I would reverse the judgment and remand the cause with directions that the trial judge review the transcript of the trial, consider the evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing, and, on the basis of all the facts and circumstances of the case, decide the issue by stating only whether, in his opinion, the accused was denied a fair and impartial trial. If aggrieved by that determination, the accused could appeal and the entire record could again be reviewed and a decision rendered as to whether the conclusion of the trial judge was clearly erroneous.
I respectfully dissent.
. This right has been protected in Missouri since its territorial days. See Digest of the Laws of the Missouri Territory, 1818, Crimes and Misdemeanors, § 35.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9666753. Public record. Not legal advice.