Haynes v. State

• Decision Date: 28 April 2020
• Docket Number: WD 82545
• Parties: Shawn C. HAYNES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

600 S.W.3d 859

Shawn C. HAYNES, Appellant,

v.STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 82545

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: April 28, 2020

James C. Egan, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Kristen S. Johnson, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division One: Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Shawn Haynes ("Haynes") appeals from a judgment denying his Rule 24.035¹ motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Haynes argues that it was error to deny his motion without an evidentiary hearing because the record did not conclusively refute his claim that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to prepare for trial and (2) for failing to advise Haynes of a viable defense. Because the record conclusively refutes Haynes's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

On January 3, 2017, Haynes pleaded guilty to the class D felonies of driving while suspended or revoked and resisting a lawful stop.

During the plea hearing, Haynes answered affirmatively that he had plenty of time to discuss his case with trial counsel; Haynes had conveyed all the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding his case; trial counsel had explained the charges and reviewed the evidence to Haynes; trial counsel had done everything Haynes asked him to do; trial counsel had not done anything that Haynes had told him not to do; Haynes was happy with trial counsel's representation and advice; Haynes felt trial counsel had done a good job for him; Haynes understood that trial counsel would obtain medical records relating to a mental illness diagnosis for purposes of sentencing and not for purposes of showing that Haynes was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect;² and Haynes was "happy" with continuing to enter his guilty pleas. Haynes also answered affirmatively that he understood by pleading guilty that he waived rights attendant to proceeding to trial. Prior to entering his guilty plea, Haynes made several statements acknowledging that he "made a conscious decision" to drive away from police, who were attempting to pull Haynes over, on the date of his offenses.

Haynes entered his plea of guilty and was eventually sentenced to six years imprisonment on each count, served concurrently. Haynes filed a timely pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Post-conviction counsel was appointed. A timely amended motion ("Amended Motion") was filed. The Amended Motion argued that Haynes's guilty pleas were entered involuntarily because (1) "counsel coerced [Haynes] into pleading guilty by failing to prepare for trial," and (2) "fail[ed] to adequately investigate the case against [Haynes] and fail[ed] to advise [Haynes] that he had a viable defense to the charge of D felony driving while license revoked."

The motion court entered a judgment ("Judgment"), which included findings of fact and conclusions of law, denying the Amended Motion without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court found that the claims raised in Haynes's Amended Motion were conclusively refuted by the record. This timely appeal followed.

Standard of Review

Our review of the denial of a post-conviction motion is limited to a determination of whether the motion court's findings of facts and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). "The motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after a review of the record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made." Dodson v. State , 364 S.W.3d 773, 776 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). "Movant has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion court clearly erred in its ruling." Id.

Analysis

Haynes raises two points on appeal. Haynes's first point asserts that the motion court erred in denying his Amended Motion without an evidentiary hearing because the record does not conclusively refute his claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to prepare for trial. Haynes's second point argues the motion court erred in denying his Amended Motion because the record does not conclusively refute his claim that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and advise Haynes of a potential defense. We address each point in turn.

Point One

Haynes's first point argues that the motion court erred by denying without an evidentiary hearing his Amended Motion claim that he was "coerced" into pleading guilty when counsel failed "to show [Haynes] any signs or indications whatsoever that he was prepared to represent [Haynes] competently and effectively at trial" because the record did not conclusively refute the claim. We disagree.

To show that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 24.035 motion, Haynes was required to establish that the Amended Motion "(1) ... alleged facts, not conclusions, warranting relief; (2) the facts alleged raise matters not refuted by the files and record of his case; and (3) the matters complained of resulted in prejudice to him." Roberts v. State , 276 S.W.3d 833, 835 (Mo. banc 2009). If the files and records conclusively show Haynes is entitled to no relief, then a hearing on his Amended Motion was not required. Price v. State , 974 S.W.2d 596, 599 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) ; see also Rule 24.035(h).

Haynes's Amended Motion claim that he was "coerced" into pleading guilty because counsel was not prepared for trial did not warrant an evidentiary hearing because the claim was conclusory and is refuted by the record. A movant "can prevail on [a] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel if he shows that his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, as a result, he was prejudiced." Roberts , 276 S.W.3d at 836 ; see also Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Haynes's claim of a coerced guilty plea thus required the assertion of facts that if true, would "show, but for the conduct of his [plea counsel] about which he complains, he would not have pleaded guilty but would have insisted on going to trial." Id. To plead a successful claim of ineffective assistance based on inadequate preparation for trial, a movant is required to allege "(1) what information his attorney failed to discover [in preparation]; (2) that reasonable ... preparation would have resulted in discovery of such information; and (3) that the information would have aided or improved his position at trial." Redeemer v. State , 979 S.W.2d 565, 569 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998).

The Amended Motion lacks this specificity. Haynes's claim of a coerced guilty plea asserts that "[b]efore the plea, counsel coerced [Haynes] into pleading guilty by failing to prepare for trial, in that counsel failed [ ] to show [Haynes] any signs or indications whatsoever that [counsel] was prepared to represent [Haynes] competently and effectively at trial." And though the Amended Motion summarily alleges that trial counsel failed to undertake a variety of pre-trial tasks,³ the Amended Motion fails to identify any specific information that trial counsel should or would have discovered in the performance of these tasks, or how that undiscovered information would have aided or improved Haynes's position at trial. The motion court did not clearly err in denying the first claim in the Amended Motion without an evidentiary hearing. See Redeemer , 979 S.W.2d at 570 (holding that no hearing was required where movant's claim "never alleged what information his attorney failed to discover, that a reasonable investigation or preparation would have resulted in discovery of such information, or that the information would have aided or improved [movant's] position at trial such that he would have spurned the plea agreement and gone to trial instead"); see also Price v. State , 974 S.W.2d 596, 598-99 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (holding that no evidentiary hearing was warranted where Movant did "not allege any facts about what his attorney should have discovered or how that would have provided a defense for him").

Even if we could construe the Amended Motion to have asserted facts, not conclusions, that would warrant relief if proven true (which we cannot), the record of Haynes's plea hearing conclusively refutes his present contention that he was coerced to plead guilty because he believed counsel was ill prepared for trial. During the plea hearing, Haynes expressly stated he was satisfied with counsel's performance and that he believed that trial counsel had done a good job for him, as provided,

Court: You're represented here today by [trial counsel]?

Haynes: Yes, sir.

Court: Have you had plenty of time to discuss your case with him?

Haynes: Yes, sir.

Court: Have you told him all the facts and circumstances surrounding your case?

Haynes: Yes, sir.

Court: Has he explained the charges to you and gone over the evidence with you?

Haynes: Yes sir.

Court: Has he done everything you've asked him to do?

Haynes: Yes, sir.

Court: Did he do anything you told him not to do?

Haynes: No, sir.

Court: Are you happy with his representation and advice?

Haynes: Yes, sir.

Court: And you feel he's done a good job for you?

Haynes: Yes, sir.

Court: Now, earlier we had some argument, or not argument, that wasn't a good word to use, we had some discussion –

Haynes: Yes, sir.

Court: -- about some medical records. Now, you understand that he's trying to get some medical records that he wants to use for purposes of sentencing --

Haynes: Yes, sir.

Court: -- and that's what you're wanting him to do?

Haynes: Yes, sir.

Court: Were you seeking him to get those records to use to show that you were not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect?

Haynes: No, sir.

Court: Okay. So you didn't expect him to have those records now or for trial. You just want him to have those for me to have a chance to view and for maybe the probation officer to

...