Balbirnie v. State
| Decision Date | 02 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | WD 84667 |
| Parties | Anthony BALBIRNIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William J. Swift, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, MO, Attorney for Appellant.
Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, and Gregory M. Goodwin, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.
Before Division Two: Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge, and Mark D. Pfeiffer and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges
Mr. Anthony Balbirnie ("Balbirnie") appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cooper County, Missouri ("motion court"), denying his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Victim,2 who was born July 19, 1997, lived with her grandparents on their farm in Willard, Missouri.3 On September 20, 2012, around 4:00 p.m., Victim walked off the farm after she became upset with her grandmother. Grandmother was unconcerned initially but grew worried when she discovered that Victim was still gone the next morning. Grandmother attempted to locate Victim through multiple means, including contacting local law enforcement, calling people that knew Victim, and posting "missing person" fliers.
Richard Chamberlain, who lived approximately five miles from Willard in Springfield, Missouri, encountered Victim just before 6:00 p.m. on September 20, 2012. Victim stopped at Chamberlain's home and asked to use his phone, and Chamberlain obliged. Chamberlain had never seen Victim before but believed that she appeared to be fourteen or fifteen years old. Victim used the phone briefly before handing it back to Chamberlain, stating that whomever she was trying to reach was not answering. Victim then left Chamberlain's home. Shortly thereafter, Chamberlain received a phone call from the number Victim had tried to reach; it was a male voice. The man asked who had tried to contact him, and Chamberlain advised that it had been a young lady. The caller asked Chamberlain where he was located and which direction Victim had gone. The phone number was later identified as belonging to Balbirnie.
Sometime before Victim disappeared, Glenda Bradshaw (a friend of Balbirnie) received a call from Balbirnie requesting that she provide a ride to him in her vehicle. When Bradshaw picked up Balbirnie, Victim, whom Bradshaw had never met, was with him. Bradshaw asked Victim how old she was; Victim stated that she was nineteen, but Balbirnie indicated that she was twenty-one. Bradshaw took Balbirnie and Victim to a friend's house, where Balbirnie and Victim "friended" each other on Facebook. Victim's Facebook page indicated that she was fifteen years old.
Around 2:00 a.m. on September 21, 2012, Larry Warner (another friend of Balbirnie) picked up Balbirnie and Victim in Springfield and drove them to Amy Hartley's house in Buffalo, Missouri, for the purpose of "partying," which Warner defined as doing drugs and having sex. Though Warner had never met Victim, he recalled Balbirnie mentioning her before, indicating that they had a sexual relationship.
When they arrived at Hartley's house, Balbirnie introduced Victim to Hartley and told Hartley that Victim was twenty-two years old. Victim asked Hartley to borrow a dress; Victim then took a shower. When Victim got out of the shower, she went to the back bedroom where she and Balbirnie engaged in sexual activities. At some point, Balbirnie emerged from the bedroom, naked and with an erection, and invited Warner into the bedroom to watch; Warner declined the invitation and left Hartley's house shortly thereafter. After Warner left, Hartley went to her own bedroom. Balbirnie and Victim, both naked, then entered Hartley's bedroom and solicited Hartley to participate in sexual activities with them. Hartley allowed Balbirnie and Victim to perform oral sex on her, but Hartley soon became uncomfortable and went back into the living room. Hartley later directed Balbirnie and Victim out of her bedroom to the living room, then eventually from the living room to the back bedroom. Hartley then retired to her bedroom.
Sometime later, Hartley heard a loud noise and left her room to investigate. She saw Balbirnie pacing in and out of the back bedroom, wearing only shorts and looking "frazzled." When Hartley entered the room, she saw Victim lying naked on the bed, shaking and seizing. Hartley approached Victim and asked if she was all right. Victim put her hands around her neck, "like she was choking," while she continued to shake and seize. Hartley told Balbirnie to call for an ambulance, but Balbirnie responded, "Fuck no, bitch." Hartley insisted that they call, telling Balbirnie that Victim was dying, but Balbirnie refused. Victim eventually stopped shaking and seizing, and Hartley checked her pulse and found that she had none. Hartley told Balbirnie to give Victim cardio-pulmonary resuscitation
("CPR"), and when he did, Victim's body convulsed and water came out of her mouth. The CPR was unsuccessful, and Victim became still and unresponsive. Hartley asked Balbirnie, "What have you done?" Balbirnie responded, "She's been doing that for hours." Balbirnie told Hartley, "We need to douche this bitch out" because he had ejaculated inside Victim.
Balbirnie redressed Victim in the dress that she borrowed from Hartley, then wrapped Victim's body in a blanket from the bed, and asked Hartley to get him some tape and a rope or cord. Hartley complied and brought Balbirnie a white trash bag, some tape, and an orange electrical cord. Balbirnie put the trash bag over Victim's head and then wrapped the cord around the blanket to keep it in place. Balbirnie carried Victim's body to the garage and put it in the trunk of Hartley's car. He then directed Hartley to "get [him] something to weight her down." Hartley suggested that Balbirnie look in the sheds outside the house. Balbirnie returned from one of the sheds with a post-driver and a piece of railroad track, which he tied to Victim's body before instructing Hartley to get in the car. The two then drove around, looking for a body of water.
On September 30, 2012, Victim's body was found floating in Truman Lake in Warsaw, Missouri, near Mile Long Bridge; it was wrapped in a blanket with tape, zip ties, and orange electrical cord, with a white trash bag over Victim's face, and attached to a post-driver and part of a railroad iron rail.
Balbirnie and Hartley eventually returned to Hartley's home, where Balbirnie gathered up Victim's clothing, put it in a trash bag, and drove away with the items in Hartley's car. Before doing so, however, Balbirnie requested some bleach and used it to wipe down the bed where Victim had died. Balbirnie also advised Hartley to wash the bedding and not to call the police.
A few days later, Balbirnie was in a motel room, using drugs with Kayla Alexander in Springfield, Missouri. Balbirnie was behaving abnormally, prompting Alexander to ask him what was going on. Balbirnie then said that he had gotten high and had sex with a fifteen-year-old girl, during which he choked and killed her.
After a change of venue from the Circuit Court of Benton County, Balbirnie was later charged in the Circuit Court of Cooper County with second-degree/felony murder (Count I), second-degree statutory rape (Count II), tampering with physical evidence (Count III), and abandonment of a corpse (Count IV). A jury trial commenced on June 20, 2016, at the conclusion of which the jury found Balbirnie guilty as charged. Balbirnie was thereafter sentenced to thirty years to life for Count I, fifteen years for Count II, five years for Count III, and five years for Count IV; Counts I and II to run consecutive and Counts III and IV to run concurrent but consecutive to Counts I and II. Balbirnie appealed, and this Court affirmed the judgment in State v. Balbirnie , 541 S.W.3d 702, 713 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018), concluding that "there was abundant evidence" of Balbirnie's guilt, including but not limited to, his admission to Ms. Alexander that he had sex with a fifteen-year-old, during which he had choked and killed her.
Thereafter, Balbirnie timely filed his pro se Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel timely filed an amended motion. An evidentiary hearing was held on March 17, 2021, wherein Balbirnie appeared in person and was represented by counsel. On June 10, 2021, the motion court denied Balbirnie's claims for post-conviction relief in a twenty-eight-page judgment outlining the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Balbirnie now appeals. Additional facts relevant to the resolution of the issues on appeal will be discussed below.
Appellate review of the denial of a post-conviction motion is limited to a determination of whether the motion court's findings of facts and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. Haynes v. State , 600 S.W.3d 859, 861-62 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) ; see also Rule 29.15(k). "A motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous if this Court ‘is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made’ after a review of the entire record." Propst v. State , 535 S.W.3d 733, 735 (Mo. banc 2017) (citing Price v. State , 422 S.W.3d 292, 294 (Mo. banc 2014) ). "Regardless of the motion court's findings and conclusions in denying the motion, we will affirm the motion court's decision if sustainable for any reason." Morrison v. State , 619 S.W.3d 605, 609 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (citing Dorsey v. State , 448 S.W.3d 276, 282 (Mo. banc 2014) ).
In Balbirnie's first point on appeal, he contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his post-conviction relief motion in that he claims the State committed a Brady4 violation when it failed to disclose statements that Hartley made to her probation officer that would have assisted Balbirnie's impeachment of Hartley as one of the State's witnesses at his criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marshall v. State
...the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law leave us "with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made." Id. (quoting Propst v. State, 535 733, 735 (Mo. banc 2017)). "Regardless of the motion court's findings and conclusions in denying the motion, we will af......