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

653 S.W.3d 655

Cornell Anthony CORNELIUS, Movant-Appellant,

v.STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. SD 36988

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, In Division.

Filed: August 22, 2022

Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied September 7, 2022

Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 1, 2022

Attorney for Appellant – Damien De Loyola of Kansas City, MO.

Attorney for Respondent – Eric S. Schmitt, Zeb J. Charlton of Jefferson City, MO.

JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, J.

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 24.035.¹ Movant 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.

Facts and Procedural Background

Procedural Background

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.³ Movant'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.

Plea Hearing on September 6, 2012

During Movant's plea colloquy, the following exchange occurred:

THE COURT: [Prosecutor⁴ ], if this Defendant pleads guilty to ... these charges, the State is going to recommend what, if anything, sir?

[Prosecutor]: Your Honor, the agreement that the parties have entered into is that the State amend the case containing the first-degree murder charge to one of murder in the second degree which, as you know, has already been done, and that the Court would order a sentencing assessment report and that at sentencing, there would be – There's an agreement that the maximum that the Court could sentence the Defendant to would be 30 years, that the State could argue for up to 30 years and the Defendant could argue for something less. [(Emphasis added).] That's in – in the murder case.

And then in the other ... cases, he would plead guilty to those and would receive some sentence equal to or less than that in the murder case which would run concurrent with the murder case.

THE COURT: [Defense counsel P.J.], is that the agreement that you believe you and your client have struck?

[Defense counsel P.J.]: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Cornelius, did you hear what they just said?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your honor.

THE COURT: Did the Prosecutor say anything that you didn't understand?

THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Is this the agreement that your attorney and you discussed?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Do you want to enter pleas of guilty to these three cases in exchange for ... that agreement?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

....

[THE COURT:] Is this – Are you pleading guilty here today pursuant to an agreement with the State of Missouri?

[THE DEFENDANT:] Yes, Your Honor.

[THE COURT:] You heard the State announce what they believe the terms of the agreement was [sic]?

[THE DEFENDANT:] Yes, Your Honor.

[THE COURT:] You heard your attorney tell me that that was his understanding of the terms of the agreement? Did you hear that?

[THE DEFENDANT:] Yes, Your Honor.

[THE COURT:] Do you – Is it what you understood it to be?

[THE DEFENDANT:] Yes. Yes, Your Honor.

....

[THE COURT:] Okay. Now, do you understand – Understand one thing, right now. You tell me you want to back up and not do this, and we'll have a trial.

[THE DEFENDANT:] Yes, Your Honor.

[THE COURT:] I'll let you back out. Do you want to back out?

[THE DEFENDANT:] No, Your Honor.

[THE COURT:] Is this the deal you want?

[THE DEFENDANT:] Yes, Your Honor.

[THE COURT:] You understand that if I accept your plea of guilty on this Class A felony, you could be sentenced up to 30 years?

[THE DEFENDANT:] Yes, Your Honor.

[THE COURT:] There's nothing going to keep the State from asking me to do that. Do you understand?

[THE DEFENDANT:] Yes, Your Honor.

[THE COURT:] And we will do a sentence assessment report. Has your attorney explained to you what that is?

[THE DEFENDANT:] Yes, Your Honor.

[THE COURT:] And then your attorney will be allowed ... to make arguments on your behalf for some alternate sentence. Do you understand that?

[THE DEFENDANT:] Yes, Your Honor.

Sentencing on December 6, 2012

Toward the beginning of the sentencing hearing, the trial court asked the prosecutor ⁵ 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: "Well, I ... indicated before, Judge, that there was that agreement that it would be between 20 and 30 and that I would be arguing for 30[.] ... I would ask the Court to impose the top end of the range of this agreement of 30 years." In response, defense counsel John stated, in part:

And in looking at his overall record, this Defendant, as it was laid out in the presentence report, it says that the average prison sentence is 21.9 years....

So I would ask the Court to ... take that into consideration. I would – Obviously, I've spoken about the fact his age. He's ... 22-years old, he's a young man and that no matter what sentence the Court gives, it's going to be 85 percent. So if it's 20 years, he's going to serve 17. If it's 25 years, he's going to serve about 21. If it's 30 years, he's going to serve 24. And we know that -- 25. We know as we sit here, that is what is going to happen.

And so, I ... think there is good in him. I think that there is a chance for rehabilitation. And with his age we know at some point, no matter if the Court decides the maximum or decides something in between, that he's going to be back in society ....

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 "I didn't feel like going to trial and if I ... won't win, I didn't want to face the rest of my life in prison. So I took this. He said this was a good plea deal to take. So I took it."

Following a recess during which counsel met with...