Gales v. State
| Decision Date | 21 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | ED 105345 |
| Parties | Christopher GALES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Christopher GALES, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
ED 105345
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.
Filed: November 21, 2017
Matthew J. Bell, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.
Joshua D. Hawley, Mary H. Moore, PO Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Presiding Judge
Introduction
Christopher Gales (Movant) appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.0351 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Movant claims the motion court erred in denying his request for post-conviction relief because plea counsel was ineffective for unreasonably pressuring him to plead guilty. We affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background
The State charged Movant as a prior and persistent offender with one count each of first-degree assault, first-degree robbery, and first-degree burglary, and three counts of armed criminal action. The indictment alleged that on or about March 22, 2012, Movant and Montez Thomas (Thomas) knowingly and unlawfully entered the home of Richmond Lingard (Victim), forcibly stole a handgun from Victim, and caused Victim serious physical injury by shooting him, all with the use, assistance, and aid of a deadly weapon. Movant pleaded guilty pursuant to an agreement with the State.
At the guilty-plea hearing, the State asserted it would prove the following. Victim, an off-duty sergeant with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, was home alone in the basement of his house when he heard someone upstairs. Victim was walking up the stairwell to investigate when he saw Movant come around the corner approximately six feet from him, whereupon Movant shot Victim with Victim's police-issued 9mm Beretta handgun that Movant had stolen. Victim attempted to exit his house but saw Thomas, also holding a gun, standing outside blocking Victim's escape route.
Victim and Victim's neighbor both identified Movant in a line-up. In a statement to police, Movant admitted to the burglary and robbery, and he admitted to shooting Victim's weapon in Victim's house. Following the State's recitation of its case, Movant agreed these facts were true. Movant attested that no one had made any threats, promises, or coerced him in any way to induce him to plead guilty. The trial court accepted Movant's guilty pleas on all six charges.
At the sentencing hearing, the court sentenced Movant, in accordance with the plea agreement, to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections for the counts of assault, robbery, and burglary, consecutive to concurrent sentences of ten years' imprisonment for the three counts of armed criminal action, for a total term of life plus ten years. The court again asked Movant: "Other than the plea bargain, did any of your attorneys communicate any threats or promises, or did they coerce you in any other way to induce you to enter your plea of guilty?" Movant responded in the negative.
Movant timely filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Through appointed counsel, he filed an untimely amended motion in which he argued his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary because plea counsel unreasonably
pressured him to plead guilty by inducing fear of a longer sentence were he not to plead guilty. Movant asserted that were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. State
...of proving the grounds asserted in his post-conviction motion by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 24.035(i); Gales v. State , 533 S.W.3d 796, 799 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). Appellate review of an order denying a motion for post-conviction relief is limited to a determination of whether the ......
-
Jones v. State
...of proving the grounds asserted in his post-conviction motion by a preponderance of the evidence. Rule 24.035(i) ; Gales v. State , 533 S.W.3d 796, 799 (Mo. App. 2017). Appellate review of an order denying a motion for post-conviction relief is limited to a determination of whether the cour......
-
Starks v. State
...a guilty plea, review is limited to determining whether the movant knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea. Gales v. State , 533 S.W.3d 796, 799 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). Counsel's performance is only material to the extent that it impacts the voluntariness and knowledge with which the movan......
-
Lee v. State
... ... plea counsel is immaterial "except to the extent that ... the conduct affected the voluntariness and knowledge with ... which the plea was made." Worthington v. State, ... 166 S.W.3d 566, 573 (Mo. banc 2005); see also Gales v ... State, 533 S.W.3d 796, 799 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017). A ... guilty plea must be both a voluntary expression of the ... movant's choice and a knowing and intelligent act done ... with sufficient awareness of the circumstances and likely ... consequences of the act ... ...