Chipman v. State

• Decision Date: 03 October 2008
• Docket Number: No. 28883.,28883.
• Citation: Chipman v. State, 274 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. App. 2008)
• Parties: Steve CHIPMAN, Jr., Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

274 S.W.3d 468

Steve CHIPMAN, Jr., Movant-Appellant, v.STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 28883.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

October 3, 2008.

Margaret M. Johnston, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W.(Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., and Evan J. Buchheim, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

GARY W. LYNCH, Chief Judge.

Steve Chipman, Jr.("Movant") entered a plea of guilty to an amended charge of second-degree murder (pursuant to section 565.021).¹At the same time, he also entered an Alford plea to a charge of forcible rape (pursuant to section 565.030).²Both charges were brought in connection with the rape and murder of Movant's twelve-year-old cousin ("Victim").³Movant was sentenced to two consecutive thirty-year terms of imprisonment.Once incarcerated, Movant filed a timely pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035.⁴Counsel was appointed, and an amended motion was filed.Following an evidentiary hearing, the motion court entered judgment denying relief.This appeal followed.We affirm.

Movant's Claim for Post-Conviction Relief

In his amended motion, Movant contended that he was denied due process of law "in that the plea court accepted his guilty plea to murder in the second degree without a factual basis having been demonstrated for that offense, contrary to Rule 24.02(e)."Movant claimed that "[d]uring the plea hearing, the factual basis for the crime was purportedly established only by the following: [Prosecutor] . . . .On August 7th of 2005 here in Stoddard County, up north of Acorn Ridge, Missouri, Mr. Chipman caused the death of [Victim].He did so by stabbing her."Movant further contended that the prosecutor's description

consists of conclusions, not facts.It is merely a citation of the charge.There was no demonstration of any evidence that movant had acted "knowingly[."]There was no demonstration of movant's state of mind; of whether movant acted intentionally, was reckless, or otherwise.And there was no demonstration that movant was acting "with the purpose of causing serious physical injury[."]Likewise, there was no demonstration of any evidence that movant was committing or attempting to commit a felony, or was fleeing from such.No facts were demonstrated whatsoever.A factual basis for a guilty plea must be demonstrated.It cannot be assumed.

Movant concluded that his "plea was not knowing and voluntary in that he[pleaded] guilty to a crime where no factual basis had been shown.Had the Court properly ensured that a factual basis was established for the charge before accepting the plea, it would have rejected [Movant's] guilty plea."

Standard of Review

This court reviews a denial of post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 to determine whether the motion court's findings and conclusions were clearly erroneous.Weeks v. State,140 S.W.3d 39, 44(Mo. banc 2004).The motion court's findings and conclusions are deemed clearly erroneous only if, after a review of the record, this Court is left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made.Id.

Discussion

On appeal, Movant presents one point relied on, wherein he claims that the motion court"clearly erred" in denying his motion "when it found that a factual basis existed for his guilty plea to murder in the second degree, because [Movant's] plea was unknowing and involuntary since the guilty plea record failed to establish a sufficient factual basis."Movant contends that his acknowledgment of the truth of the prosecutor's statement that he caused Victim's death "by stabbing her with a knife . . . did not establish a factual basis because it is as consistent with the elements of voluntary manslaughter as it is with second degree murder."Movant challenges only his plea to the charge of murder in the second degree.He does not contest his Alford plea to forcible rape under count two of the amended information.Movant further asserts that he admitted only that he caused victim's death by stabbing her, and "[h]e was not asked about his mental state or his purpose when he stabbed her."This admission, he claims, fails to establish that he had the purpose of causing serious physical injury and does not establish a sufficient factual basis for second degree murder.

"A factual basis for a guilty plea is necessary to ensure that the guilty plea was intelligently and voluntarily entered, thereby satisfying due process requirements."State v. Henry,88 S.W.3d 451, 457(Mo.App.2002)(citingParker v. State,608 S.W.2d 543, 545(Mo.App.1980)).Rule 24.02(e) provides that "[t]he court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it determines that there is a factual basis for the plea."This rule, however, is not constitutionally mandated.Sales v. State,700 S.W.2d 131, 133(Mo.App.1985).Nor does a plea court's failure to comply with this rule render its judgment invalid for lack of jurisdiction.Samuel v. State,156 S.W.3d 482, 484(Mo.App.2005);Waserman v. State,100 S.W.3d 854, 861(Mo. App.2003);State v. Henry,88 S.W.3d 451, 457(Mo.App.2002).Rather, the purpose of Rule 24.02(e)"is to aid in the constitutionally required determination that a defendant enter a plea of guilty intelligently and voluntarily."Schuerenberg v. State,98 S.W.3d 922, 923(Mo.App.2003).Rule 24.02(e) serves as protection for "an accused who may appear to be pleading voluntarily and with an understanding of the nature of the charge, but who does so without realizing that his conduct does not actually fall within the charge."Price v. State,137 S.W.3d 538, 541-42(Mo.App.2004).In other words, a movant's post-conviction constitutional challenge to the knowingness and voluntariness of his or her guilty plea based upon an insufficient factual basis must not only prove the insufficiency of a factual basis on the record before the plea court, i.e., the lack of compliance with Rule 24.02(e), but also must demonstrate that such failure deprived him or her of the actual knowledge of the factual basis for the charge, thereby rendering his or her plea unknowing and involuntary and, thus, unconstitutional.

Compliance with Rule 24.02(e)

There is no particular ritual in establishing a factual basis for a guilty plea as required by Rule 24.02(e).Myers v. State,223 S.W.3d 165, 167(Mo.App.2006).Further, "[n]othing in the rule requires that a factual basis be established before a guilty plea is accepted."Price,137 S.W.3d at 542.A determination that there is a factual basis for the plea "can be made anytime before the judgment is entered and `from anything that appears on the record.'"Id.(quotingUnited States v. Adams,961 F.2d 505, 512(5th Cir.1992)).See alsoMartin v. State,187 S.W.3d 335, 339(Mo.App.2006)("the factual basis does not have to be established from the defendant's words or by an admission of the facts as recited by the State, as long as the basis exists on the record as a whole.")."An appellate court's focus is on whether the defendant understood the nature of the charge against him and not on whether a particular ritual was followed or every detail was explained."Wagoner v. State,240 S.W.3d 159, 165(Mo.App.2007).

In denying Movant's claim, the motion court, in addition to the prosecutor's summary statement of the facts supporting the murder charge, referenced a motion hearing held on November 21, 2006, two months before Movant's plea hearing, in which evidence was heard by the trial court on Movant's motions to suppress statements and evidence.The motion court notes that the transcript of that hearing was filed in the underlying criminal case just eight days later on November 29, 2006, some two months before Movant's plea hearing.This transcript was designated as Motion Court Exhibit 1 and was offered and received into evidence at the motion hearing when the motion court took judicial notice of the entire underlying criminal case file.This exhibit, however, was omitted by the Movant from the record before this court.Therefore, the content and the intendment will be taken as unfavorable to Movant and as favorable to the motion court's ruling.SeeState v. Crawford,32 S.W.3d 201, 206 n. 4(Mo.App.2000).

The motion court also referenced the autopsy report admitted into evidence during the plea hearing as exhibit 3.The autopsy report indicated that Victim "died as a result of knife stab wounds of the head and back."It also found that Victim had been stabbed thirty-four times.The motion court found that "[t]he foregoing was sufficient to establish a factual basis[,]" in that all were part of the record and available to the plea court.

Count I of the amended information charged that Movant"committed the class A felony of murder in the second degree, . . . in that on or about August 7, 2005, . . . [Movant] knowingly caused the death of [victim] by stabbing her."Under section 565.021.1(1), "[a] person commits the crime of murder in the second degree if he: (1)[k]nowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes the death of another person[.]"

Section 562.016 establishes definitions of the culpable mental states relating to the elements of conduct, result, and attendant circumstances set out in the statutes defining the offense.Defined under subsection 2, "[a] person `acts purposely[,'] or with purpose, with respect to his conduct or to a result thereof when it is his conscious object to engage in that conduct or to cause that result."Section 562.016.2.Subsection 3 provides that "[a] person `acts knowingly[,'] or with knowledge, (1)[w]ith respect to his conduct or to attendant circumstances when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that those circumstances exist; or (2)[w]ith respect to a result of his conduct when he is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause that result."Section 562.016.3.

Movant here claims that his...