Ahern v. Turner, 54024

• Decision Date: 02 August 1988
• Docket Number: No. 54024,54024
• Citation: 758 S.W.2d 108
• Parties: James P. AHERN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. TURNER, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 108

758 S.W.2d 108

James P. AHERN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard L. TURNER, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 54024.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Four.

Aug. 2, 1988.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied

Sept. 7, 1988.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 18, 1988.

Nangle & Nangle, Stephen J. Nangle, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Evans & Dixon, Edward S. Meyer, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.

SIMON, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff, James P. Ahern, appeals the entry of summary judgment in his legal malpractice action against defendant, Richard L. Turner, an attorney. Other defendants, Hillary H. Hallett, an attorney, Turner and Turner, a legal partnership, and Turner and Hallett, a legal partnership, also were the beneficiaries of the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the action. However, plaintiff's appeal concerns Richard L. Turner only.

The underlying action, which forms the basis for the alleged legal malpractice, grew out of an indictment against plaintiff for two counts of vehicular manslaughter and one count of driving while intoxicated. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State nolle prossed the driving while intoxicated count and plaintiff entered his plea of guilty to the remaining two counts of vehicular manslaughter. Following extensive interrogation by the trial judge pursuant to the mandate of Rule 24.02, the trial judge found that the plea of guilty was voluntarily and intelligently made, with full understanding of the charges and the consequences of his plea of guilty, as well as an understanding of his rights attending jury trial and the effect of his plea of guilty on those rights. Further, the trial judge found that there was a factual basis for the plea of guilty and accepted the plea of guilty.

Following the acceptance of the plea of guilty, the trial judge ordered a pre-sentence investigation. After receipt of the investigation report and allocution, plaintiff was sentenced to concurrent terms of three years on the vehicular manslaughter counts.

Subsequently, plaintiff filed his petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, but on June 4, 1986, his motion to dismiss without prejudice was granted.

On March 10, 1986, plaintiff filed an action for legal malpractice against Richard L. Turner and the other defendants. In his petition, plaintiff essentially alleged that as a direct and proximate result of Turner's carelessness and negligence, plaintiff was cajoled and persuaded to plead guilty and the evidence was insufficient for the state to prevail under its burden of proof.

In his amended answer, Turner alleged that plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. In conjunction therewith, Turner filed a "Motion for Summary Judgment Dismissing Complaint." The motion essentially alleged that plaintiff's plea of guilty precludes him, pursuant to the principle of collateral estoppel, from bringing a legal malpractice action against Turner, relying on State ex rel O'Blennis v. Adolf, 691 S.W.2d 498 (Mo.App.1985). Turner further alleged that there is no evidence that the alleged negligent acts were the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, relying on Lange v. Marshall, 622 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.App.1981).

Following arguments on the motion, the trial judge indicated his intent to grant the motion for summary judgment, but stayed the entry of his order...