Johnson v. State, 54808
| Decision Date | 06 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 54808,54808 |
| Citation | 774 S.W.2d 862 |
| Parties | Donald L. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 12, 1989.
Michael C. Todt, Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Daryl R. Hylton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant pled guilty to first degree burglary, § 569.160, RSMo 1986, resisting arrest, § 575.150 RSMo 1986, and second degree burglary, § 569.170 RSMo 1986. The court sentenced movant to concurrent terms of twelve, three, and three years imprisonment respectively. Movant filed a pro se Rule 27.26 motion on August 3, 1987. After the appointment of counsel, movant filed an amended motion which alleged that his guilty pleas were the result of beatings he received from the St. Louis Police and threats concerning his family. The Honorable Robert G. Dowd, Jr., conducted an evidentiary hearing and concluded that movant's guilty plea was voluntarily and knowingly made. From this movant appeals.
Movant alleges that his guilty plea was involuntarily coerced from beatings and subsequent threats made by the St. Louis Police. The test in determining the validity of a guilty plea is whether it was made voluntarily and knowingly and with understanding of the nature of the charge. Lewis v. State, 539 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Mo.App.1976). If the movant has been misled or induced to plead guilty by fraud, mistake, misapprehension, coercion, duress or fear, he should be permitted to withdraw the plea. Latham v. State, 439 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Mo.1969). Appellate review of a denial of a Rule 27.26 motion is limited to a determination of whether findings, conclusions, and orders of the trial court are clearly erroneous. Cook v. State, 741 S.W.2d 678, 680 (Mo.App.1987). The judgment of the trial court is clearly erroneous if the appellate court is left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Anderson v. State, 747 S.W.2d 281, 283 (Mo.App.1988).
Movant specifically alleges that a St. Louis Police officer threatened harm to movant and his family unless movant pled guilty and remained silent about beatings received at the time of his arrest. To discover the movant's state of mind when he made his plea, it is necessary to consider the totality of the circumstances in which it was made. Lewis v. State, supra, at 579. Movant asserted that he discussed the beatings by the St. Louis Police with his attorney, Ms. Moss. In response, Ms. Moss stated that she was inexperienced in such matters and advised him that he may have a civil action in the future. Movant, a lay person with only an eighth grade education, argues that this could be interpreted to mean that nothing could be done during the guilty plea hearing regarding the police...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scroggins v. State, WD
...duress or fear, he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Latham v. State, 439 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Mo.1969); Johnson v. State, 774 S.W.2d 862, 863 (Mo.App.1989); Tillock v. State, 711 S.W.2d 203, 205 (Mo.App.1986). "Unawareness of certain facts at the time of a plea does not necessar......
-
Adams v. State
...the motion court was not required to believe Movant's testimony. Garrett v. State, 814 S.W.2d 325, 327 (Mo.App.1991); Johnson v. State, 774 S.W.2d 862, 863 (Mo.App.1989); Thomas v. State, 759 S.W.2d 622, 623 (Mo.App.1988). Consequently, the motion court was not compelled to find Ms. Gilliam......
-
State v. Cummings, s. WD
...all or part of any witness' testimony was within its sound discretion. Floyd v. State, 518 S.W.2d 700 (Mo.App.1975); Johnson v. State, 774 S.W.2d 862 (Mo.App.1989). We find no basis for concluding that the motion court wrongly believed Major Eberle over Coonce and For the same reason, we co......
-
Turner v. Stancil, Case No. 4:17CV1249 RLW
...guilty by fraud, mistake, misapprehension, coercion, duress or fear, he should be permitted to withdraw the plea." Johnson v. State, 774 S.W. 2d 862 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989). This Court asked the Movant at his plea hearing if he had been threatened or coerced in any way to get him to enter a gu......