State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297 (Mo. 1967). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297 (Mo. 1967). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
57 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pennington v. Armontrout (mowd, 1987-04-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pennington v. Armontrout
W.D. Mo. · 1987 · confidence medium
The purpose of Rule 27.26(h) was stated in the Supreme Court of Missouri’s landmark decision in State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Mo. en banc 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Futrell v. State (2×)
Mo. · 1984 · confidence medium
State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Mo. banc 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Wyrick
W.D. Mo. · 1983 · confidence medium
Fritz reversed a State trial court which had denied without evidentiary hearing a Missouri Rule 27.26 motion in order “to permit the filing of an amended motion and for such further proceedings as may be called for under Supreme Court Rule 27.26 V.A.M.S.” Fritz noted that “in an effort to improve the effectiveness of the remedy provided under our Rule 27.26, an amended version of the rule was promulgated January 9, 1967, to become effective September 1, 1967.” The Fritz court then quoted the following paragraph from the leading Missouri case of State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Mo…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hicks v. Wyrick
W.D. Mo. · 1983 · confidence medium
We have frequently directed attention to the late Chief Justice Storchman’s observation in State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Mo.Sup.Ct. en banc 1967) which stated that: The amended rule [27.26] was adopted after considerable study and is intended to provide a post-conviction procedure in accord with the principles enunciated in the so-called trilogy of Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1 , 83 S.Ct. 1068 , 10 L.Ed.2d 148 , Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 , 83 S.Ct. 822 , 9 L.Ed.2d 837 , and Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed.2d 770 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shepherd v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1982 · confidence medium
Rule 27.-26(c); State v. Rector, 547 S.W.2d 525, 526 [1] (Mo. App. 1977). “[T]he ... rule is designed to discover and adjudicate all claims for relief on one application and avoid successive motions by requiring mo tions to be in questionnaire form and by providing for the appointment of counsel if the motion presents questions of law or issues of fact and the movant is shown to be indigent.” State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 298 [2] (Mo. banc 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fields v. State
Mo. · 1978 · confidence medium
Further in keeping with the teachings of the trilogy, the amended rule is designed to discover and adjudicate all claims for relief in one application and avoid successive motions by requiring motions to be in questionnaire form and by providing for the appointment of counsel if the motion presents questions of law or issues of fact and the movant is shown to be indigent.” State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Mo. banc 1967).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thompson v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1978 · confidence medium
Our Rule 27.26 was fashioned to meet the requirements of the “triology,” including Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 , 83 S.Ct. 822 , 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963), see State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 298 [2][3] (Mo. banc 1967), and it can scarcely be denied there is some degree of analogy between federal postconviction proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and proceedings under our Rule 27.26.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James William Stidham v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden (2×)
8th Cir. · 1974 · confidence medium
Rule 27.26 “is designed to discover and adjudicate all claims for relief in one application and avoid successive motions by requiring motions to be in questionnaire form.” State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 308 (Mo.1967).
discussed Cited "see" Garton v. Swenson
W.D. Mo. · 1976 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Stidham (Mo. en banc 1967) 415 S.W.2d 297 , in which Chief Justice Storckman stated the proper appellate procedure for a Missouri appellate court to follow in the event a State trial judge failed to hold a required evidentiary hearing or failed to state findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Missouri’s then recently amended Rule 27.26.
cited Cited "see" Floyd v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1975 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Mo. banc 1967).
cited Cited "see" Joe Hegwood v. Harold R. Swenson, Warden
8th Cir. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297 (Mo.1967).
cited Cited "see" Caffey v. Swenson
W.D. Mo. · 1969 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Stidham, Mo., 415 S.W.2d 297 .
discussed Cited "see" State v. Keeble (2×)
Mo. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Stidham, Mo., 415 S.W.2d 297 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Young v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also, State v. Stidham, 415 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Mo. banc 1967).
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
James William STIDHAM, Appellant
52406.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Jun 5, 1967.
415 S.W.2d 297
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Nowotny, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent., James William Stidham, pro se.
Storckman.
Cited by 49 opinions  |  Published
STORCKMAN, Chief Justice.

The appellant James William Stidham is a prisoner in the Missouri State Penitentiary where he is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for murder. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by this court on September 9, 1957. State v. Stidham, Mo., 305 S.W.2d 7. On March 9, 1964, Stidham, pursuant to S.Ct. Rule 27.26, V.A. M.R. filed pro se in the Circuit Court of Butler County a motion to vacate and set aside his sentence. The motion to vacate was denied without an evidentiary hearing and on appeal this court on June 13, 1966, affirmed the order and judgment. State v. Stidham, Mo., 403 S.W.2d 616. Thereafter, Stidham filed pro se a second motion to vacate under Rule 27.26 which presented[*298] claims not made in his first motion. The trial court without an evidentiary hearing also denied the second motion to vacate and the prisoner’s appeal from that order and judgment is now before us. The movant filed a brief pro se in this court and made an oral argument.

On January 9, 1967, this court adopted a revised S.Ct. Rule 27.26. The effective date of the revised rule is September 1, 1967, but the trial courts may use the new procedure before that date. State v. Garner, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 155, 157.

The amended rule was adopted after considerable study and is intended to provide a post-conviction procedure in accord with the principles enunciated in the so-called trilogy of Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 83 S.Ct. 1068, 10 L.Ed.2d 148, Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837, and Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770. Further in keeping with the teachings of the trilogy, the amended rule is designed to discover and adjudicate all claims for relief in one application and avoid successive motions by requiring motions to be in questionnaire form and by providing for the appointment of counsel if the motion presents questions of law or issues of fact and the movant is shown to be indigent.

These and other provisions intended to furnish more adequate post-conviction relief were not provided by Rule 27.26 in effect at the time the present motion was filed or when the appeal was argued and submitted in this court. It is apparent, however, that regardless of whether this court affirms the order and judgment, or reverses and remands the cause, the movant will be immediately entitled to proceed under the provisions of amended Rule 27.26, and compliance with the amended rule would be obligatory after September 1 this year. In these circumstances, it would be improvident to process the appeal further and undertake to prepare an opinion on the merits. The maximum relief to which the appellant is entitled in this court is a reversal of the order and judgment of the trial court and a remand for further proceedings under amended Rule 27.26. Bosler v. Swenson, 8 Cir., 363 F.2d 154; Swenson v. Bosler, 386 U.S. 258, 87 S.Ct. 996, 18 L.Ed.2d 33. Furthermore, it appears that appellant’s motion raises one or more issues of fact on which appellant would be entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

Accordingly, the order and judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that all further proceedings be in compliance with the provisions of amended Rule 27.26. If appellant elects to proceed with his motion in the trial court, counsel must be appointed under sub-paragraph (h) of the amended rule since appellant has been shown to be an indigent person. Counsel should file an amended motion which includes every ground known to the prisoner for vacating, setting aside or correcting his conviction and sentence, and the prisoner shall verify the correctness of the motion, including the fact that he has recited all claims known to him, all as required by subparagraph (c) of the amended rule. The trial court then is required to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the amended motion as required by subparagraph (e) of the amended rule, assuming that the motion raises questions of fact as does the present motion, after which the court then is to decide all issues of fact and questions of law, making findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by subparagraph (i) of amended S.Ct. Rule 27.26.

All of the Judges concur.