Legal Opinion

Cox v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided October 29, 1985No. 49973PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CLEMENS, Senior Judge.

Movant-defendant Harold Cox has appealed the summary denial of his Rule 27.-26 motion. He based this on trial counsel’s alleged failure to tell him about his right to rely on insanity as .a defense.

In the trial court defendant had pled guilty to six sodomies and had been sentenced to prison as a prior felon to six concurrent six-year prison terms.

In his Rule 27.26 motion defendant pled generally his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to tell defendant of his right to a psychiatric examination and to plead not guilty on that ground.

Under Rule 27.26(f)…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Shelley v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Ashabranner v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Warren v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  2. Moore v. StateMissouri Court of Appeals · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API