Chatman v. State, 55198

• Decision Date: 31 January 1989
• Docket Number: No. 55198,55198
• Citation: 766 S.W.2d 724
• Parties: Randle CHATMAN, Jr., Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 724

766 S.W.2d 724

Randle CHATMAN, Jr., Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 55198.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division One.

Jan. 31, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court

Denied March 8, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied April 18, 1989.

Ilene A. Goodman, St. Louis, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

REINHARD, Judge.

Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

Movant pleaded guilty to first degree robbery, § 569.020, RSMo 1986. The trial court, in accordance with a plea agreement, sentenced movant to twelve years' imprisonment. On February 11, 1988, movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion in which he raised several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. On March 22, 1988, he filed an amended motion wherein he requested the appointment of counsel; that same day, counsel was appointed.

On May 23, 1988, movant's counsel requested an evidentiary hearing and filed an unverified first amended motion alleging that movant's guilty plea was involuntary due to the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. On May 24, 1988, the state filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the files, "including the plea transcript," conclusively show movant is not entitled to relief. On June 14, the motion court issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law denying movant's first amended motion without an evidentiary hearing. ¹ The court concluded movant's claims were refuted by the record and that no hearing was necessary.

On appeal, movant's principal complaint is that the motion court erred in finding, without an evidentiary hearing, that his trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to contact and interview his codefendant, who movant claims would have exonerated him.

Our review is limited to determining whether the findings, conclusions, and judgment of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j); Richardson v. State, 719 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Mo.App.1986).

To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a movant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). A motion court may proceed directly to the issue of prejudice without first determining whether counsel's conduct was deficient. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, 104 S.Ct. at 2069; Richardson, 719 S.W.2d at 915-16.

To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion for postconviction relief, the movant must allege facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would warrant relief; the allegations of fact must not be refuted by the record; and the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the movant's defense. Thomas v. State, 736 S.W.2d 518, 519 (Mo.App.1987).

At movant's plea hearing, the prosecutor stated that the evidence against movant would show the following: The victim had just come from a money exchange and was going toward her car when movant and another man who had a sawed-off shotgun approached her and ordered her into her car; all three got into the car; the two men threatened to shoot her if she moved and ordered her to drive away; while she was driving they took her ring, money and credit cards; four blocks from the point of abduction the men ordered her to stop the car, took her keys, and then exited the car; about two weeks later, the victim saw movant at another location, contacted the police and, in a photo array, identified movant as one of the robbers; the police found movant hiding in the upstairs of a house in which they had been told he could be found; at a line-up, the victim again identified movant as one of the robbers. The prosecutor also stated into the record that movant's previous criminal record was as follows: Movant was convicted of robbery in the first degree in 1972, pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent in 1972, and pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree in 1975.

Movant's claim that his counsel was ineffective is clearly refuted by the record. He admitted in court the accuracy of the prosecutor's statements of the facts of the crime charged and his prior criminal record. He also testified that his attorney had done everything he had asked him to do.

Movant's prior criminal record shows his familiarity with criminal court proceedings and procedures, including those involving pleas. The record reveals he entered his plea in exchange for a 12 year sentence. As part of the plea agreement for this reduced sentence, he disclosed to the court the name of his cohort.

We agree with the court that movant was not prejudiced by any act or omission of his trial counsel. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous and the court properly denied movant's motion without an evidentiary hearing.

In movant's final point he claims:

The trial court clearly erred when it failed to give [movant] notice, within fifteen days after an amended motion was filed pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 24.035(g), whether or not the court would grant an evidentiary hearing and the court's failure to follow the rule denied [movant] notice of the court's intention to rule on the motion and an opportunity to be heard before denying the motion, thereby denied [movant] of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law.

Movant cites Supreme Court Rule 24.035(g), Mills v. State, 723 S.W.2d 71 (Mo.App.1986) , and Riley v. State, 680 S.W.2d 956 (Mo.App.1984), in support of this point.

Rule 24.035(g) provides:

A request for a hearing shall be made by motion on or before the date an amended motion is required to be filed. Within fifteen days after the date an amended motion is required to be filed, the court shall determine whether to grant a hearing. If no request for hearing is timely filed or if the motion and the files and record of the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief, a hearing shall not be held. If a hearing is ordered, it shall be held within sixty days of the date of the order granting a hearing.

Mills and...