Court Opinion

ID: 9668839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:28:33.662251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:48.919075
License: Public Domain

SEILER, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. As I understand it, a case may be reopened to show that a fundamental constitutional right was denied defendant. If the defendant is serving the sentence, the remedy is under rule 27.26; if the sentence has been completed, his remedy is by coram nobis.
Since in both instances the defendant is claiming he was deprived of a constitutional right, I see no sound reason for providing counsel as a matter of course for an indigent under rule 27.26, but not doing so for an indigent under coram nobis. I do not understand State v. Herron, (Mo.Sup.) 376 S.W.2d 192, cited in the majority opinion to hold otherwise. As I read it, it was a case under rule 27.26 where the defendant was still under sentence, not coram nobis, and it was decided in 1964, prior to the amendment to rule 27.26 whereby appointment of counsel for indigents was provided for.
It is true that under the record, defendant answered in the affirmative to two leading questions put by the court as to knowing he was entitled to a lawyer. I do not think it follows at all from these answers that he was fully aware of his right to counsel or that he voluntarily and understandingly waived his right to counsel.
We are all aware of the danger of leading questions, ones which “put the answer into the mouth of the witness and require merely a monosyllabic assent”, Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., Vol. Ill, Sec. 769. It would be more convincing if the defendant were asked to state his understanding of what his right to counsel is and then see what he says. Maybe he would prove to have a correct understanding and maybe not.
Nor do I believe we can equate the fact of previous convictions with awareness of one’s rights. A history of prior convictions does not in my opinion indicate astuteness in any respect. In this case, defendant has made it clear he is claiming he was denied assistance of counsel. The scanty record related in the majority opinion does not convincingly show otherwise.
Defendant’s application is not skillfully drawn, but we should remember he is proceeding pro se. We provide a form for 27.26 petitions, but none for coram nobis. I suspect a good many judges, as well as lawyers, are uncertain just how to proceed in coram nobis without first resorting to legal research. How then can we expect a prisoner to handle it pro se?
Mention is made in the trial court’s findings that defendant did not plead guilty to an offense he did not commit. It has been held repeatedly that a 27.26 case does not turn on whether or not defendant is in fact guilty or innocent and the same is logically true with respect to coram nobis. The question is as to whether defendant’s con*637stitutional rights have been infringed, This, I respectfully submit, has not been determined one way or the other in this case.
I would remand this for appointment of counsel for amendment of the application and for such proceedings in the trial court as are then indicated, using the principles of rule 27.26 as a guideline.