Case Name: Larry MURPHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1983-03-15
Citations: 648 S.W.2d 651
Docket Number: No. 44145
Parties: Larry MURPHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 648
Pages: 651–651

Head Matter:
Larry MURPHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 44145.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
March 15, 1983.
Thomas H. Bottini, Gary Sarachan, St. Louis, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Kristie Green, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George Peach, St. Louis, for respondent.

Opinion:
CRIST, Judge.
Second Rule 27.26 motion denied by the trial court. Movant did not appeal from his first Rule 27.26 judgment, entered September 22, 1976. We affirm.
Movant complained in his second Rule 27.26motion that the first Rule 27.26 judge failed to enter sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. The second Rule 27.26judge found the issues raised in his second Rule 27.26 motion were ruled upon and denied by the first Rule 27.26 judge.
On this appeal, movant complains the second Rule 27.26 judge did not make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law with reference to his complaint that the first Rule 27.26 judge also failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Movant cannot attack the result of a prior post-conviction proceeding in his second Rule 27.26 motion. McCormick v. State, 502 S.W.2d 324, 326 (Mo.1973). If movant was unhappy about the findings of fact and conclusions of law in his first Rule 27.26judgment, he should have appealed. Rule 27.260).
There was little more the second Rule 27.26judge could have added to his order so as to be of help to this court in disposing of movant's appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.