- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
DIXON v. STATE
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 below and thereafter briefed on appeal. 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.
Maggard v. State, 471 S.W.2d 161 (Mo. 1971); Johnson v. State, 463 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. 1971).
Camillo v. State, 555 S.W.2d 386 (Mo.App. 1977); Plant v. State, 547 S.W.2d 835[1, 2] (Mo.App. 1977).
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.
Alert