Case Name: Clifford P. MALONE, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1982-12-21
Citations: 644 S.W.2d 381
Docket Number: No. 44855
Parties: Clifford P. MALONE, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 644
Pages: 381–382

Head Matter:
Clifford P. MALONE, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 44855.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
Dec. 21, 1982.
Rothman & Sokol, Robert J. Keefe, Clayton, Terry A. Bond, St. Louis, for movant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.

Opinion:
CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.
Movant appeals from the trial court's denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his successive Rule 27.26 motion. We affirm. Movant's conviction for murder in the first degree was affirmed in State v. Malone, 301 S.W.2d 750 (Mo.1957). The denial of mov-ant's first Rule 27.26 motion was affirmed in Malone v. State, 461 S.W.2d 727 (Mo. 1971).
Movant, first alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in his original trial because his attorney failed to properly investigate and prepare his case. This contention was raised in Malone v. State, 461 S.W.2d 727 (Mo.1971) and will- not be reconsidered in this appeal. Rule 27.26(d).
Movant next alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in his original trial because his attorney failed to request a manslaughter instruction. Our review of the record discloses that trial counsel did request a manslaughter instruction and it was refused. The refusal of the manslaughter instruction was raised on direct appeal and ruled adversely to movant in State v. Malone, 301 S.W.2d 750, 759 (Mo.1957). It will not be reconsidered in this appeal. Rule 27.26(b)(3).
Movant finally alleges ineffective assistance of counsel in his first Rule 27.26 motion for failure to raise the two contentions that he raises in this appeal. For the reasons previously given, movant's contention is without merit.
The order of the trial court denying mov-ant's successive Rule 27.26 motion without an evidentiary hearing is affirmed.
REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.