Opinion

State v. Keeble

  • 427 S.W.2d 404
  • 1968 Mo. LEXIS 1008
Court
Supreme Court of Missouri
Filed
Apr 8, 1968
Status
Published
Author
Eager
On the bench
Finch, Eager, Donnelly
Cited by
32 cases

The opinion

Concurring Opinion

EAGER, Judge.

I approve entirely of the discussion in the principal opinion of the nature of proceedings under Amended Rule 27.26, and generally of the requirement therein concerning the furnishing of free transcripts' to indigents. I filed this separate opinion merely to say that only in an exceptional, case should the trial court order a full transcript of the original criminal trial for the purpose of proceedings under Rule 27.26 where no such transcript had been previously prepared; and particularly does this suggestion apply where there are merely conclusory allegations in a motion to vacate asserting that the representation by counsel at the trial was inadequate. This is becoming a rather popular line of attack upon judgments of conviction, and it is indeed very easy to make such allegations without any real or substantial foundation. We are, of course, considering whether the trial court should order a full transcript upon the allegations of the motion itself, in order to provide a fair hearing. It is my view that such an order should only be made where there are factual allegations of specific defaults or failures of counsel, and that this power of the trial court should be exercised with caution. The view has apparently become rather *410 prevalent in the minds of many of those convicted that their counsel were all inadequate and ineffective when they did not, in fact, procure acquittals.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.