Edwards v. State, WD
Citation | 794 S.W.2d 249 |
Decision Date | 03 July 1990 |
Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
Parties | Terry Lee EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. 42437. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
David S. Durbin, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.
Before NUGENT, C.J., and FENNER and ULRICH, JJ.
Terry Lee Edwards was charged and pled guilty to second degree assault. In exchange for the plea, the State recommended a maximum sentence of five years. Following a presentence investigation, Edwards was sentenced to a term of "four and a half years" imprisonment.
Edwards filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035 on January 31, 1989. The Public Defender's Office was subsequently appointed and an amended motion was filed on Edwards' behalf on May 1, 1989. Following an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied Edwards' request for post-conviction relief. Edwards appeals said denial.
Edwards presents three points on appeal. In point one he alleges that the motion court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief on the basis that the sentence he received of four and one half years is invalid. This is so, argues Edwards, because the range of punishment for a class C felony contemplates a term of whole number years only.
In the recent case of State v. Morrow, 793 S.W.2d 410, 412, (Mo.App.1990), this court held that the imposition of a "fractional" sentence of two and one-half (2 1/2) years' imprisonment was permissible. Point one is denied.
In point two, Edwards argues that the motion court erred in denying post-conviction relief because his guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made in that trial counsel had misrepresented the range of punishment as well as the fact that the victim was paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair.
In order to prevail when attacking the competency of counsel following entry of a guilty plea, a movant must show that counsel's errors were so serious that his representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that these errors affected the outcome of the plea process. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58, 106 S.Ct. 366, 370, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). Additionally, to meet the prejudice requirement, movant must show there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Scharnhorst v. State, 775 S.W.2d 241, 247 (Mo.App.1989).
Edwards cannot prevail for either of the reasons he alleges. First, regardless of what counsel told him as to the range of punishment, the record clearly establishes that Edwards was well informed, at the time he entered his guilty plea, of the possible range of punishment.
Second, even if Edwards' counsel made a statement to the effect that the victim was paralyzed, the record makes no indication that this information was untrue at the time it was related to Edwards. The evidence was that the victim suffered extensive injuries as a result of the collision which formed the basis for the charge against Edwards. Following lengthy hospitalization, the victim resided at a rehabilitation facility for some eight months to relearn motor and cognitive...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eichelberger v. State
...errors affected the outcome of the plea process." Sutton v. State, 966 S.W.2d 337, 340 (Mo.App. S.D.1998) (citing Edwards v. State, 794 S.W.2d 249, 250 (Mo.App. W.D.1990)). "Thus, after appellant's guilty plea, the effectiveness of his trial counsel is immaterial except to the extent that h......
-
State v. Stillings, s. 17728
...pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Engelmann v. State, 864 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Mo.App.W.D.1993); Edwards v. State, 794 S.W.2d 249, 250-51 (Mo.App.W.D.1990). Consistent with that logic we hold that where, as here, an accused who has stood trial and been convicted seeks post-......
-
Eichelberger v. State, WD60171
...errors affected the outcome of the plea process." Sutton v. State, 966 S.W.2d 337, 340 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (citing Edwards v. State, 794 S.W.2d 249, 250 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990)). "Thus, after appellant's guilty plea, the effectiveness of his trial counsel is immaterial except to the extent th......
-
Gilliland v. State, 19329
...pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Engelmann v. State, 864 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Mo.App.W.D.1993); Edwards v. State, 794 S.W.2d 249, 250-51 (Mo.App.W.D.1990). We have carefully studied Movant's motion for postconviction relief. In it, we find allegations that (a) Movant, duri......