Hicks v. State, 69022
| Citation | 918 S.W.2d 385 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 69022,69022 |
| Parties | Everlee HICKS, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Missouri Circuit Court of St. Francois County; Kenneth W. Pratte, Judge.
Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Christine M. Blegen, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand.
On August 30, 1994, movant entered an Alford 1 plea to possession of a controlled substance in a correctional institution, § 217.360, RSMo Supp.1992. The prosecutor stated that the evidence would have shown that on October 10, 1993, a correctional officer strip-searched movant following movant's meeting with a visitor and discovered three balloons containing marijuana. Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, the court sentenced movant to a prison term of three years to run consecutively with the sentence movant was currently serving.
Our review is limited to determining whether the findings, conclusions and judgment of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j); Vernor v. State, 894 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Mo.App.E.D.1995). Such findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if a review of the entire record leaves this court with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Vernor, 894 S.W.2d at 210. In order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing, movant must cite facts, not conclusions, which, if true, would entitle him to relief; the factual allegations must not be refuted by the record; and the matters complained of must prejudice movant. Id. When a movant pleads guilty, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are only relevant as they affect the voluntariness and understanding with which the plea was made. Fox v. State, 819 S.W.2d 64, 66 (Mo.App.1991).
On appeal, movant alleges his plea was involuntary because his counsel failed to request a change of venue after telling movant he could not receive a fair trial in St. Francois County.
Movant alleged in his amended motion:
As a result [of counsel's failure to obtain a change of venue], movant's plea was unknowing and unintelligent, and therefore involuntary.... Rule 32.03 mandates that "a change of venue shall be ordered in any criminal proceeding pending in a county having seventy-five thousand or fewer inhabitants upon the filing of a written application ... by the defendant." Movant was originally charged in St. Francois County, a county of less than seventy-five thousand.... Movant contends that his plea was unknowing and involuntary because he reasonably believed that he could not get a fair trial in St. Francois County. St. Francois County is the same county in which movant is and has been incarcerated. In addition, movant is African American and the entire jury by which he would have been tried, was all white. Movant contends that counsel informed him that he, as an African American, could not get a fair trial in St. Francois County.
The motion court denied movant's motion without an evidentiary hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. State
...of counsel are relevant only as, they affect the voluntariness and understanding with which the plea was made. Hicks v. State, 918 S.W.2d 385, 386 (Mo.App. E.D.1996). In order to prove prejudice, appellant must demonstrate that, "but for" the errors of counsel, he would not have pleaded gui......
-
Moss v. State
...S.W.2d 677, 678 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983). The court has no discretion in whether to grant the defendant's request. See Hicks v. State, 918 S.W.2d 385, 386-7 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996); State v. Closser, 687 S.W.2d 657, 658 (Mo. App. S.D. 1985). Because the trial court is allowed no discretion where a......
-
Combs v. State
...and knowledge with which a [movant] pled guilty." Cain v. State, 859 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) ; see also Hicks v. State, 918 S.W.2d 385, 386 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). To prove prejudice in that context, a movant must demonstrate that, but for counsel's deficient representation, a re......
-
Combs v. State
... ... [movant] pled guilty." Cain v. State, 859 ... S.W.2d 715, 717 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); see also Hicks v ... State, 918 S.W.2d 385, 386 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). To ... prove prejudice in that context, a movant must demonstrate ... that, ... ...