Flenoy v. State
Decision Date | 28 October 2014 |
Docket Number | WD 76722 |
Citation | 446 S.W.3d 297 |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Parties | Cavona C. Flenoy, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. |
S. Kate Webber, Kansas City, MO, for Appellant.
Dora Fichter, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before Division Three: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge
Cavona C. Flenoy (“Flenoy”) appeals the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion following an evidentiary hearing. Flenoy claims her trial counsel failed to adequately advise her about the law of self-defense given her youth and mental health issues, and that but for her failure to understand the law of self-defense as applied to her case, she would not have chosen to plead guilty. Because Flenoy's claim on appeal was not asserted in her post-conviction motion, the claim has been waived and is not subject to our review. The judgment denying Flenoy's 24.035 motion is affirmed.
Flenoy was charged in the Circuit Court of Platte County with murder in the second degree, armed criminal action, stealing a motor vehicle, and stealing a credit card. She pled guilty to these charges on December 9, 2010. During the guilty plea hearing, the state indicated it would present the following evidence against Flenoy if the case were to proceed to trial:
Flenoy's trial counsel advised the plea court that the state's recitation of the evidence was consistent with what had been revealed through discovery. Trial counsel also advised the plea court Trial counsel then asked Flenoy to confirm that she understand the evidence the state had recited, and that Flenoy answered, “Yes.”
The plea court asked Flenoy to confirm certain of the salient facts recited by the state. Relevant to this case, the plea court then asked Flenoy:
Earlier in the guilty plea hearing, before the state's recitation of the evidence, the plea court had asked Flenoy to confirm her understanding of the rights she was relinquishing by pleading guilty. Flenoy confirmed that she understood that the state would be required to present evidence of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to which all twelve jurors would have to agree. In addition, the plea court had Flenoy confirm that she had had plenty of time to talk to her trial counsel; that trial counsel had answered all of her questions; that she had told trial counsel every fact that she felt was important with regard to what happened; that trial counsel had done everything Flenoy had asked of her, and had not failed or refused to do anything asked of her; that she did not need more time to talk with trial counsel; and that she had no complaint or criticism about anything trial counsel did or did not do, and was satisfied with trial counsel's representation. The plea court also specifically asked:
Flenoy then entered her guilty pleas to each of the charges. The pleas were accepted by the plea court, and the matter was scheduled for sentencing.
At the sentencing hearing on January 21, 2011, Flenoy presented the testimony of Dr. Marilyn Hutchinson who testified about Flenoy's traumatic upbringing, including several incidents involving rape or sexual assault. Dr. Hutchinson explained that Flenoy had a gun with her at the time of the victim's murder because she had otherwise been threatened by someone who lived in her apartment complex. Dr. Hutchinson opined that at the time Flenoy killed the victim, she was having “flashbacks and emotional reactivity to the previous rapes.” Dr. Hutchinson testified that when the victim made...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hudson v. State, ED 106162
...the motion court found trial counsels' testimony more credible, and we defer to its credibility determinations. See Flenoy v. State , 446 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) ("Determinations concerning credibility are exclusively for the motion court and it is free to believe or disbelieve......
-
Wray v. State
..."The movant bears the burden of establishing clear error, as we presume the motion court's findings are correct." Flenoy v. State, 446 S.W.3d 297, 301 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (citing Baumruk v. State, 364 S.W.3d 518, 525 (Mo. banc 2012) ). "The [motion] court's findings and conclusions are cle......
-
Rueger v. State
...he would not have entered a guilty plea to that charge. The motion court was free to accept or reject this testimony. Flenoy v. State, 446 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Mo.App.W.D.2014) ; Watts v. State, 248 S.W.3d 725, 732 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) (stating that “[o]n a claim of ineffective assistance of couns......
-
Durst v. State
...contradicted or undisputed.’ " Cross v. State , 454 S.W.3d 365, 369 (Mo. App. 2015) (quoting with emphasis added Flenoy v. State , 446 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Mo. App. 2014) ). Such deference, furthermore, has been applied in situations where, like here, testimony has been provided by way of depos......