Court Opinion

ID: 9763011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:35:16.822176+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.819372
License: Public Domain

FINCH, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the principal opinion herein with the understanding that it holds that Lonnie Garrett is entitled on remand to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether *383he was represented by counsel at the time of his conviction of burglary and larceny in 1959, and that the case is not remanded merely for a finding of fact on that issue.
Defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing, at which he has the right to testify as to whether he had counsel in that case. He has the right to undertake to impeach the court record which recites that Lonnie was represented by T. B. Russell. S.Ct. Rule 27.26(e), V.A.M.R.; State v. Garner, Mo., 412 S.W.2d 155. The question of whether defendant had counsel is a fact issue for determination by the trial court on the basis of the court record and such other evidence as is offered. As the principal opinion properly observes, “Where the record, as here, affirmatively demonstrates the accused was represented by counsel, the petitioner has the burden of impeaching the record.” Losieau v. Sigler, 8 Cir., 406 F.2d 795, 801.