Eichelberger v. State, WD 60174.

Citation71 S.W.3d 197
Decision Date19 March 2002
Docket NumberNo. WD 60174.,WD 60174.
PartiesBertrand EICHELBERGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Tara L. Jensen, Asst. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Dora A. Fichter, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Presiding Judge, EDWIN H. SMITH, Judge and VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge.

JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Presiding Judge.

Bertrand Eichelberger appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

On August 9, 1999, in accordance with a plea agreement with the State, Appellant appeared before the circuit court and entered pleas of guilty to one count of statutory sodomy, two counts of child molestation, and one count of misdemeanor sexual misconduct. He also entered an Alford1 plea of guilty to one count of statutory sodomy. In conjunction with those pleas, Appellant admitted committing various sexual acts on an eight-year-old boy on January 30, 1999. In exchange for Appellant's pleas, the State agreed not to recommend a total sentence of more than eighteen years and to dismiss a sixth count in the indictment.2

The plea court accepted Appellant's pleas and found Appellant guilty of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree, two counts of child molestation in the first degree, and one count of misdemeanor sexual misconduct. Subsequently, on October 1, 1999, following a sentencing hearing, the plea court sentenced Appellant to concurrent terms of fifteen years on each sodomy count, seven years on each child molestation count, and one year for misdemeanor sexual misconduct.

On January 11, 2000, Appellant filed a timely pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. On July 14, 2000, appointed counsel filed an amended motion. The only issue raised in Appellant's motion was a claim that plea counsel had been ineffective for failing to investigate and call certain character witnesses to testify during the sentencing hearing and that he would not have entered his pleas if he had known counsel would not follow his instructions in that regard. Appellant claimed to have asked counsel to contact and call seventeen different individuals as character witnesses and that counsel refused to call any of them for fear of angering the judge.

On May 31, 2001, the motion court entered its order denying Appellant's motion without an evidentiary hearing. In denying Appellant's claim, the trial court specifically found that Appellant's challenge related solely to the effectiveness of counsel at sentencing and that counsel's actions at sentencing could not have affected the voluntariness and knowledge of his plea. For this reason, the motion court held that a claim that counsel was ineffective based upon actions of counsel during the sentencing phase were not cognizable in a Rule 24.035 motion.

On appeal, Appellant contends that the motion court erred in denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant argues that the motion court improperly found that claims related to counsel's performance during sentencing were not cognizable in a Rule 24.035 motion and that an evidentiary hearing should have been conducted on his motion.

Our review of the motion court's decision on a Rule 24.035 motion is limited to determining whether its findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. Rollins v. State, 974 S.W.2d 593, 595 (Mo.App. W.D.1998). "The motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if a review of the entire record by the appellate court results in a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made." Copas v. State, 15 S.W.3d 49, 53 (Mo.App. W.D.2000).

In its brief, the State concedes, as it must, that the motion court erred in holding that Appellant failed to state a cognizable claim because it related to counsel's actions during the sentencing phase. While claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in a Rule 24.035 motion are largely limited to actions on the part of counsel that affected the voluntariness of the plea, claims that counsel was ineffective during sentencing are cognizable under Rule 24.035. Sutton v. State, 966 S.W.2d 337, 339-40 (Mo.App. S.D.1998) (citing Griffin v. State, 937 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Mo.App. E.D.1997)); See also Adams v. State, 951 S.W.2d 722, 724 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997) ("Trial counsel's performance at the sentencing portion of a criminal proceeding is cognizable under Rule 24.035."). Accordingly, the motion court misstated the law and clearly erred in rejecting Appellant's motion for failing to state a cognizable claim.

Notwithstanding its concession that the motion court erred, the State argues that the court's decision must be affirmed if it is sustainable on any grounds, citing State v. Bradley, 811 S.W.2d 379, 383 (Mo. banc 1991).3 The State then asserts that the record clearly refutes the allegations in Appellant's motion and that his motion could have properly been denied without an evidentiary hearing on that basis.

"To obtain relief on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant must establish: (1) that counsel's performance did not conform to the degree of skill, care and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that he was thereby prejudiced." Weston v. State, 2 S.W.3d 111, 114 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).4 In order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 24.035 motion, a movant must satisfy three requirements: "(1) the movant must allege facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would warrant relief; (2) the alleged facts must not be refuted by the record; and (3) the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the movant." Nunn v. State, 23 S.W.3d 910, 913 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000). "[A] court may resolve claims for post-conviction relief without a hearing where the motion, files, and records of the case conclusively show the movant is entitled to no relief." Holt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Mo.App. E.D.1999). "[W]here the record reveals defense counsel's conduct constituted reasonable trial strategy, the post-conviction motion court may deny relief without granting an evidentiary hearing." Id.

In arguing that Appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was clearly refuted by the record, the State relies solely upon the following averment contained in Appellant's motion:

On the day Mr. Eichelberger was to be sentenced Mr. Moore told Mr. Eichelberger that he would call only one witness, a psychiatric expert who would testify as to Mr. Eichelberger's likelihood to reoffend. Mr. Eichelberger asked Mr. Moore why he would not call the other witnesses—many of whom Mr. Eichelberger had contacted and were present in court that day. Mr. Moore responded by saying that he would not call Mr. Eichelberger's witnesses because he thought that by presenting supportive witnesses he would make the court `mad.'

The State argues that it was reasonable for counsel to conclude that calling character witnesses might make the court mad and that avoiding a course of action that might anger the court constitutes a reasonable trial strategy and cannot be construed as ineffective assistance of counsel.

In addressing the State's argument, we must determine whether the record conclusively establishes that counsel's failure to investigate or call the witnesses was a matter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Smith v. Sachse
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
    • February 9, 2016
  • Fields v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 29, 2022
  • Waserman v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 2003
    ... ... Although the Court has carefully considered Movant's Rule 24.035 motion and all evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing, there has been no evidence to persuade the Court that its previous finding was in any way erroneous or deficient ...         Movant relies on Eichelberger v. State, 71 S.W.3d 197 (Mo.App. W.D.2002), in arguing it was unreasonable for Wallace to avoid presenting details about Movant's disagreement with the victims over the failed business transaction because Wallace had a duty to do what was best for his client and present all evidence that Movant ... ...
  • Eichelberger v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 25, 2004
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT