Davis v. State, 53756
| Decision Date | 26 July 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 53756,53756 |
| Parties | Jerry DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Stormy B. White, Asst. Public Defender, Clayton, for appellant.
Karen A. King, Asst. Atty. Gen., William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant, Jerry Davis, appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 27.26 motion after an evidentiary hearing. Davis was convicted of one count of second degree burglary, in violation of RSMo § 569.170 (1986). He was sentenced as a persistent offender to ten years imprisonment. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Davis, 698 S.W.2d 600 (Mo.App., E.D.1985). Davis now alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in that his attorney did not interview a witness to the offense and failed to call that witness at trial. Finding Davis' contention to be without merit, we affirm.
At the outset, this court recognizes the standard of review to be applied to a motion court's ruling on a Rule 27.26 motion. The appellate court is limited to a determination of whether the motion court's findings, conclusions and judgment are clearly erroneous. Rule 27.26(j). Such findings and conclusions are deemed clearly erroneous only if, after a review of the entire record, this court is left with the definite and firm impression that the motion court is mistaken. Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987); Stokes v. State, 688 S.W.2d 19, 21 (Mo.App., E.D.1985).
In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must demonstrate that his attorney's performance was deficient; that the attorney's performance fell below the standard of reasonable effectiveness. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In evaluating counsel's performance, the court takes cognizance of the wide latitude which is to be accorded counsel in making tactical decisions. Potter v. State, 742 S.W.2d 231, 232 (Mo.App., E.D.1987). As well, a strong presumption exists that counsel made all significant decisions in the exercise of his reasonable professional judgment. Williams v. State, 730 S.W.2d 284, 287 (Mo.App., E.D.1987). Strategic choices made after a thorough investigation of the law and the facts which are relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable. Id. In addition to showing that counsel's performance was deficient, a movant must convince the court that such deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064. That is, a movant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's deficient performance, the result of the trial would have been different. Stokes, 688 S.W.2d at 23.
Davis maintains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney did not interview a potential witness, Karen Trentham, or call her as a witness at trial. In investigating a potential witness, an attorney must exercise the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances. Abrams v. State, 698 S.W.2d 15, 18 (Mo.App., E.D.1985). Rarely will a court find that the failure to interview a witness is sufficient to justify a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel. Sanders, 738 S.W.2d at 858. For, the "attorney handling a trial is in, a better position than anyone else to know how a witness' testimony may help or hinder his client." Stokes, 688 S.W.2d at 24.
In the present case, Karen Trentham was one of two persons who witnessed the offense for which Davis was convicted. At the hearing on Davis' Rule 27.26 motion, his trial counsel testified that she attempted on several occasions to contact Trentham by telephone. She...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...wide range of professionally reasonable trial strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066, 80 L.Ed.2d at 695; Davis v. State, 761 S.W.2d 636 (Mo.App.1988). Appellant's first two allegations relate to his prior assault on Ms. Johnson. We note at the outset that appellant's trial......
-
Jindra v. State, WD 81689
...banc 1997) ). A witness may not be called if counsel believes their testimony will be more damaging than it is helpful. Davis v. State , 761 S.W.2d 636, 637-38 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988). The burden is on the movant to show that " "(1) counsel knew or should have known of the existence of the wit......
-
Jenkins v. State, 16494
...facts and circumstances, with the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform. Davis v. State, 761 S.W.2d 636, 637 (Mo.App.1988). The trial court that heard and determined movant's post-conviction motion did not, however, enter a finding with respect to ......
-
State v. Hayes, WD
...often does elect not to call a witness because he judges the witness's testimony will not be helpful and may be damaging. Davis v. State, 761 S.W.2d 636 (Mo.App.1988). In this case no attempt is made to justify on the ground of trial strategy the failure to call Barbara Carver as a witness.......