Grace v. State

• Citation: 313 S.W.3d 230
• Decision Date: 15 June 2010
• Docket Number: No. ED 93439.,ED 93439.
• Parties: William GRACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

313 S.W.3d 230

William GRACE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 93439.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

June 15, 2010.

Jessica M. Hathaway, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Chris Koster, John W. Grantham, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., Judge.

Introduction

William Grace (Movant) appeals from the motion court's judgment denying, without

313 S.W.3d 231

an evidentiary hearing, his amended motion under Rule 24.035¹ to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment and Sentence and Request for Evidentiary Hearing. We affirm

Background

Movant was charged as a prior and persistent offender with first-degree statutory rape of a person less than 14 years of age, pursuant to Section 566.032² (Count I); first-degree statutory sodomy of a person less than 14 years of age, pursuant to Section 566.062 (Count II); first-degree child molestation, pursuant to 566.067 (Count III); and exposing another person to HIV infection without knowledge or consent, pursuant to Section 191.677 (Count IV). The State entered a nolle prosequi on Count III. On October 9, 2007, Movant's trial began; however, on October 10, he pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford.³

During the guilty-plea hearing, the State testified that it would have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Movant, at the age of 34, had sexual intercourse with Victim, who was then eight years old. Specifically, Victim told her mother that while she was in the laundry room with Movant, he pulled down her pants, touched her genitals, and then put his penis between her legs touching her genitals and ejaculated. Victim stated that there was partial penetration. DNA seized from Victim's underpants was an identity match to Movant. At the time of the assault, Movant was HIV positive. During sentencing, the State further stated that Movant's seminal fluid was found covering the entire crotch of Victim's underpants, and that a physical examination of Victim within 24 hours of the incident revealed redness in her vaginal area, which the doctor would have testified was consistent with a penis rubbing against it. The court found that a factual basis for the charges was established.

Also during the guilty-plea hearing, the trial court initially rejected Movant's Alford plea after Movant stated that he "did not know" whether there was a "substantial likelihood that a jury would find him guilty of the charges," that the reason he was pleading guilty was because he did not want to get life in prison, and that he "did not know" why it would be better to plead guilty than go to trial. The court noted an off-the-record conversation occurred in which Movant stated that he was being forced to plead guilty.

His plea counsel requested to speak with Movant off the record. Subsequently, Movant stated he had been confused during the earlier questioning; rather, he believed that he stood a "better chance of getting a better result" from the judge than from a jury, that there was enough evidence for a jury to find him guilty of the charges even though he denied their truth, and that it was in his best interests to plead guilty. Plea counsel stated that he informed Movant it was "more likely than not" that Movant would be found guilty; and that while Victim's mother had initially been willing to offer favorable testimony on Movant's behalf, she had changed her mind before trial.

Movant then confirmed that no promises had been made to him regarding the judge's decision or the sentence, and that he understood the range of punishment for each of the charges: a minimum of five

313 S.W.3d 232

years to life on Counts I and II, and a minimum of five to thirty years on Count IV. Movant acknowledged that he could receive a sentence of life in prison from the court even after pleading guilty. Movant confirmed that he knew he could still go to trial if he wanted to, that he had sufficiently discussed his legal rights with plea counsel, that plea counsel had answered all his questions and had done everything that was asked, that plea counsel was capable of continuing to trial, and that Movant had no criticisms of plea counsel and was satisfied with his legal services

The court narrated the trial rights Movant was waiving, and Movant confirmed he understood and had no questions. Finally, Movant confirmed that no one had "threatened, intimidated or mistreated him or any member of his family or in any way forced him to plead guilty against his own free will." The court accepted Movant's pleas as given ...