Lyons v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 2001 |
| Citation | 39 S.W.3d 32 |
| Parties | (Mo.banc 2001) . Andrew Lyons, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. SC82410 Supreme Court of Missouri Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Scott County, Hon. W.H. Winchester, III
Counsel for Appellant: William J. Swift
Counsel for Respondent: Shaun J. Mackelprang and John M. Morris
Opinion Summary: Andrew Lyons' convictions and sentences, including two first-degree murders and two death penalties, were affirmed on appeal. He now appeals denial of post-conviction relief.
AFFIRMED.
Court en banc holds: The motion court did not err in denying Lyons' claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
(1) Counsel had legitimate strategic decisions for failing to present evidence that state doctors believed Lyons incapable of deliberating. Counsel took reasonable steps to evaluate Lyons' mental health status and fought to ensure he would receive a favorable mental health evaluation--by a private rather than state mental health expert. Overwhelming evidence supported finding deliberation, defeating his claim of prejudice. There is no indication that counsels' failure to provide Lyons' treating doctors with access to neuropsychological testing was unreasonable, since evaluations showed no brain damage, or that Lyons was prejudiced.
(2) Counsel were not ineffective in failing to more exhaustively question Lyons' sisters, mother, brother, or a certain psychologist. As to each witness, counsel reasonably chose to question the witness in the manner questioned, the testimony would have been cumulative, and no prejudice was shown. Counsel extensively interviewed Lyons' family members, and counsel were not required to shop for another expert who might provide more favorable testimony.
(3) Lyons failed to establish that his attorneys acted unreasonably in failing to move for a mistrial or request the fourth venirepanel be discharged when one venireperson said he believed Lyons "guilty as sin." Only one comment was at issue. That person was stricken. A juror from that panel indicated no prejudice.
(4) There is no reason to believe the court did not exercise independent reflection before adopting the findings and conclusions drafted by the state. They were supported by the evidence.
(5) Counsel adequately challenged the penalty phase instructions. There is no reason to believe the jurors were confused by the plain language of the instructions, which have been determined constitutional. There was no prejudice from counsels' failure to call a researcher to testify.
(6) Counsel were not ineffective for failing to more exhaustively challenge this Court's proportionality review. This Court has repeatedly denied similar challenges.
Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. All concur.
Appellant, Andrew Lyons, was convicted of two counts of murder in the first degree, section 565.020.1, RSMo 1994, and one count of involuntary manslaughter, section 565.024.1, RSMo 1994. This Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. State v. Lyons, 951 S.W.2d 584 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1130 (1998). Appellant then filed for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15, which the motion court denied after conducting an evidentiary hearing consisting largely of depositions and other exhibits. On appeal, appellant raises six points of error. Affirmed.
On direct appeal this Court summarized the facts as follows. Lyons, 951 S.W.2d at 587. As of September 1992, Andrew Lyons and Bridgette Harris had been living together for three years in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Their eleven-month old son, Dontay, lived with them, as did Bridgette's two children from a previous relationship, seven-year-old Demetrius and four-year-old Deonandrea. Approximately one week before the murders, Lyons told a longtime friend that he was having problems with Bridgette. Lyons told the friend that "he just felt like killing" and that the "best thing for [Bridgette] to do . . . was to get killed . . . ." Around the same time, Bridgette moved out of the house she shared with Lyons. She and the three children moved in with Bridgette's mother, Evelyn Sparks.
Two days before the murders, Lyons drove his truck alongside Bridgette and her older sister while they were walking on a sidewalk. He stopped the truck and pulled forward the passenger's seat, revealing a shotgun. The women ran away and reported the incident to the police.
The day before the murders, Lyons told another friend that Evelyn was interfering with his relationship with Bridgette and that "she should leave them alone or he would kill her." That night, he told Bridgette's best friend that "I am going to end up killing [Evelyn]." Around midnight, Lyons told yet another friend that he was going to shoot Evelyn with his shotgun and "catch a train out of here."
On the morning of Sunday, September 20, 1992, Lyons went to Evelyn's house, where Bridgette was staying. He and Bridgette argued. Lyons left, went back to his house, and grabbed his shotgun and a duffel bag packed with clothes and ammunition. Shortly after 10 a.m., Lyons returned to Evelyn's house. Evelyn was in the kitchen. Bridgette, Demetrius, Deonandrea, and Dontay were downstairs in the basement. Demetrius heard a loud noise from upstairs and went to see what had happened. On his way, he passed Lyons coming down the stairs carrying a shotgun. Demetrius saw his grandmother lying on the kitchen floor and ran to his room. In the basement, Lyons shot Dontay once and shot Bridgette once.
Lyons then drove to the house where his half-brother, Jerry DePree, was staying. Lyons asked DePree to follow him to the house of his friends John and Gail Carter so that he could drop off his truck. Upon arriving at the Carters' house, Lyons went in to talk to Gail. He told her that he had killed Bridgette and Evelyn and that he had shot Dontay by accident. Lyons went back outside and transferred the shotgun and duffel bag from his truck to DePree's car. Lyons got into DePree's car and told him to drive away. DePree asked him what was wrong, and Lyons told him that he had shot some people and that the police would probably be looking for him. DePree dropped Lyons off at Trail of Tears State Park. Lyons left his shotgun in DePree's car.
Back at Evelyn Sparks's house, another of Evelyn's daughters arrived around 11 a.m. She found her mother on the kitchen floor and called the police. The police discovered Bridgette and Dontay in the basement. All three were dead. Evelyn died from massive hemorrhaging and tissue destruction caused by a gunshot wound above her left hip. Bridgette died from massive hemorrhaging and tissue destruction caused by a gunshot wound below her right shoulder. Dontay died from extensive brain tissue damage secondary to a contact gunshot wound to the left eye.
When DePree learned later in the day that Evelyn, Bridgette, and Dontay had been shot to death, he turned over Lyons's shotgun to the police. The shell casing found in the shotgun and two shell casings found at Evelyn's house matched the shell casings of cartridges fired from the shotgun by the State's firearms examiner.
Lyons was arrested in the afternoon and confessed to having shot Evelyn, Bridgette, and Dontay that morning. At trial, the jury found Lyons guilty of murder in the first degree for the deaths of Evelyn Sparks and Bridgette Harris and guilty of involuntary manslaughter for the death of Dontay Harris. The jury could not agree on a punishment for the murder of Evelyn Sparks. The jury recommended a sentence of death for the murder of Bridgette Harris and seven years incarceration for the death of Dontay Harris. The trial court sentenced Lyons to death for the murder of Evelyn Sparks and accepted the jury's recommendations as to the deaths of Bridgette and Dontay. This Court affirmed appellant's convictions and sentences.
In reviewing a denial of post-conviction relief, this Court's review is limited to a determination of whether the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. Moss v. State, 10 S.W.3d 508, 511 (Mo. banc 2000). Findings of fact and conclusions of law are only clearly erroneous if, after review of the whole record, the Court is left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Id.
In each of appellant's points, he alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant claims that his counsels' ineffective assistance violated appellant's right to effective assistance of counsel, due process, a fair trial, a fair and impartial jury, and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, sections 10, 18, and 21 of the Missouri Constitution.
To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a movant must " 'show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.'" Moss, 10 S.W.3d at 511 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 (1984)). A movant must also show that " 'there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.'" Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694). " 'A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.'" Id. Counsel's actions are presumed competent. State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 592 (Mo. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1056 (1998) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689-90). Further, counsel's actions that constitute reasonable trial strategy are not grounds for ineffective assistance claims. Id.
Appellant contends that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to present evidence that three Fulton State Hospital doctors who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLaughlin v. Steele
...that retaining such an expert “would reveal no additional, beneficial information.” McLaughlin , 378 S.W.3d at 342. Citing Lyons v. State , 39 S.W.3d 32, 37–38 (Mo. banc 2001), the court found that it had been reasonable for trial counsel to rely on advice from Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Caruso......
-
Middleton v. Roper
...in which it had rejected similar arguments based on Dr. Wiener's studies. Middleton II, 103 S.W.3d at 743 (citing Lyons v. State, 39 S.W.3d 32, 43-44 (Mo.2001); State v. Deck, 994 S.W.2d 527, 542-43 (Mo.1999); State v. Jones, 979 S.W.2d 171, 181 (Mo.1998)). In Deck, for example, the state s......
-
McLaughlin v. State
...to rely on the advice of experts in determining whether additional testing or additional expert opinions are necessary. See Lyons v. State, 39 S.W.3d 32, 37–38 (Mo. banc 2001). In Lyons, Andrew Lyons claimed that the overruling of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief was clearly......
-
State v. Deck, No. SC 89830 (Mo. 1/26/2010)
...See, e.g., State v. Parker, 886 S.W.2d 908, 933-34 (Mo. banc 1994); State v. Richardson, 923 S.W.2d 301, 330 (Mo. banc 1996); Lyons v. State, 39 S.W.3d 32, 44 (Mo. banc 2001); State v. Johnson, 207 S.W.3d 24, 50-51 (Mo. banc 2006); State Barton, 240 S.W.3d 693, 709-11 (Mo. banc 2008). Few o......