Cornelius v. State
Docket Number | SD 36988 |
Decision Date | 22 August 2022 |
Citation | 653 S.W.3d 655 |
Parties | Cornell Anthony CORNELIUS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Attorney for Appellant – Damien De Loyola of Kansas City, MO.
Attorney for Respondent – Eric S. Schmitt, Zeb J. Charlton of Jefferson City, MO.
Cornell Anthony Cornelius("Movant") timely appeals from the motion court's denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his amended motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035.1Movant raises two points relied on – that (1)the State breached its plea agreement with Movant because the plea agreement permitted the State to argue for a sentence of up to 30 years in prison and permitted Movant to argue for "something less" rather than a minimum sentence of twenty years in prison, and (2) sentencing counsel was constitutionally ineffective in not objecting to the prosecutor's claimed erroneous recitation of the plea agreement, adding the 20-year-minimum, at sentencing.We reject both of Movant's points and affirm the motion court's judgment.
Following a change of venue from Henry County to St. Clair County, Movant, on September 6, 2012, entered a plea of guilty pursuant to an oral plea agreement to murder in the second degree,2 and two other Henry County offenses charged in separate cases.Movant was subsequently sentenced for those offenses on December 6, 2012, to 28 years in prison for murder in the second degree and concurrent terms of seven and three years in prison for the other two offenses.Movant was represented by Patrick James O'Connor("P.J.") at the plea hearing, and by P.J.’s father, John Patrick O'Connor("John"), at sentencing.Associate Circuit Judge Michael C. Dawson presided at Movant's plea hearing and imposed Movant's sentence.
On June 3, 2013, Movant filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035, and, for the first time, claimed that the State breached its plea agreement with Movant because the plea agreement announced at the plea hearing permitted the State to argue for a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and permitted Movant to argue for "something less" but, at sentencing, the State announced that under the plea agreement "the minimum would be a 20-year-sentence on the murder case."This claim was carried forward into an amended motion for post-conviction relief that added a claim that sentencing counsel was constitutionally ineffective in not objecting to the prosecutor's claimed erroneous recitation of the plea agreement at sentencing.3Movant's post-conviction relief proceeding was assigned to Associate Circuit Judge Jerry J. Rellihan on December 31, 2014.
The motion court conducted an evidentiary hearing on November 5, 2020, and entered its judgment denying Movant's amended motion on January 5, 2021.
During Movant's plea colloquy, the following exchange occurred:
Toward the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the trial court asked the prosecutor5 for his recommendation on sentencing so that the victim's mother and sister, who were expected to testify, would be able to respond to that recommendation.In response, the prosecutor informed the trial court:
Well, I can state for the record, Judge, and ... it was stated at the time of ... the plea that the State had agreed as part of an overall plea agreement in this case to amend what was originally charged as first[-]degree murder to second[-]degree murder and that the Defendant would plead guilty to that amended charge, that there ... was an agreement that the maximum penalty that could be imposed would be a 30-year sentence and that the minimum would be a 20-year sentence on the murder case, and it was further agreed that the Defendant would be sentenced to a term of years on the other two charges that would just run concurrent with the murder charge, and that has been communicated to the victim's family and – for quite some time and the State does intend to, not surprisingly, argue for the top end of that range.I mean it's no secret to the defense that the State is going to be arguing, in fact urging, that the Court sentence the Defendant to 30 years.
After testimony of witnesses called by both the State and Movant and Movant's own testimony, the prosecutor began his argument for an appropriate sentence stating: In response, defense counsel John stated, in part:
The trial court then imposed sentence ordering that Movant be imprisoned for 28 years for murder in the second degree, and ordering concurrent terms of imprisonment of seven and three years for Movant's other two Henry County offenses.
Subsequently, during the trial court's inquiry into the assistance provided Movant by his counsel, the O'Connors, Movant stated he"had a sufficient opportunity to discuss [his] case" with P.J. but not with John, and that P.J. had done "everything in the case up until today."Movant then stated he was "not satisfied" with P.J.’s assistance "[b]ecause I'm here now pleading guilty and being sentenced for something I didn't do," and that he was "not truthful with the Court" when he told the trial court at his plea hearing that he shot the victim.After speaking privately with John, Movant continued to assert that he had not shot the victim; that his cousin had shot the victim; that he had told his "attorney"these facts; and added that "I pled to this because I didn't want to face life in prison," and
Following a recess during which counsel met with...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Mims v. State
...Charges are frequently amended to lesser offenses with lesser punishments as part of plea agreements. See, e.g., Cornelius v. State, 653 S.W.3d 655, 664 (Mo. App. S.D. 2022) (charge amended from first-degree murder to second-degree murder); Johnson v. State, 477 S.W.3d 2, 4 (Mo. App. E.D. 2......
-
Branson v. Buckner
...agreements "should be the product of fair negotiations and should meet reasonable expectations of both the prosecution and the defendant." Id. (quoting Roberts State, 276 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Mo. banc 2009)). Because a plea agreement is a contract, contract principles apply.[8] See id. (applyin......