Matthews v. State, 57638
| Decision Date | 12 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 57638,No. 2,57638,2 |
| Citation | 501 S.W.2d 44 |
| Parties | Marvin MATTHEWS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Cox & Moffitt, Dallas W. Cox, Jr., St. Louis, for movant-appellant Marvin Matthews.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles B. Blackmar, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
HOUSER, Commissioner.
Marvin Matthews has appealed (prior to January 1, 1972) from a judgment overruling his 27.26 V.A.M.R., motion to vacate three concurrent life sentences entered upon pleas of guilty entered on April 29, 1963 to two charges of forcible rape and one charge of assault with intent to ravish with malice aforethought.
Appellant's first point is that the findings of the circuit court are clearly erroneous in ruling that the pleas of guilty were voluntarily made; that appellant understood the nature of the charges and consequences of pleas of guilty; that he was not misled by promises and had ample opportunity to discuss the three charges with his attorney; and that he admitted the facts constituting the three crimes charged. He argues that under Rule 25.04 the court shall not accept a guilty plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charge; that the court did not inquire of him as to the facts leading to these charges; did not advise him that the court was not bound by recommendations made to the court; did not explain the range of punishment on the assault charge; did not elicit any facts from appellant's own mouth as to what acts he had committed which constituted the crimes; did not make inquiry to determine whether he was 'knowledgeable of what he was doing'; that there was a failure to comply with Rule 25.04; that the examination of appellant was perfunctory and not carefully done to make sure that appellant was fully informed and that he understood that he was charged with three separate offenses; that he would be sentenced on all three, and the minimum and maximum punishment for each.
In addition to the transcript of the 27.26 hearing we have examined the transcript of the proceedings of April 29, 1963 at which appellant entered the three pleas of guilty. At that hearing appellant stated that he was familiar with the charges, and was specifically informed that he was charged with raping C_ _ R_ _ on December 4, 1962; with raping H_ _ M_ _ P_ _ on December 18, 1962 and with assault with intent to ravish H_ _ S_ _ on December 26, 1962. (The names were stated in full at the hearing, but are disguised here for obvious reasons.) The 1963 record further shows that appellant agreed with his attorney's statement and inquiry in open court that the two had 'talked about these matters at some length'; that appellant had discussed them with his stepfather 'at some length'; that appellant had indicated to his attorney that he wanted to plead guilty to these three charges, and that his attorney had told appellant that he did not recommend that he plead guilty, but that appellant wanted to plead guilty 'with the idea that (he would be) sentenced to life imprisonment on each charge but that * * * they'll all run concurrently and not consecutively.' Thereupon the assistant circuit attorney took up each case by number, and recited the facts in considerable detail, clearly identifying time and place and stating the acts performed by appellant, giving name, age and race of the victim in each instance and relating ample surrounding circumstances to enable appellant without any possibility of mistake to be fully informed of the charge in each case. The detailed recital by the prosecutor supported acceptance of the pleas. See and compare the bare recital found sufficient in Delany v. State, 475 S.W.2d 102, 103(1) (Mo.1971), cert. den., 406 U.S. 948, 92 S.Ct. 2053, 32 L.Ed.2d 336. The judge then asked and received from appellant affirmative answers to these questions: whether he understood that in each of the three cases he had a right to a trial by jury if he wanted one; that if tried by jury he might be found either guilty or not guilty; that if found guilty the jury would determine his sentence, which might be less than life imprisonment, at least in the case of the charge of assault with intent to ravish; that the sentence might be more than life imprisonment; that sentences might run consecutively instead of concurrently; that in the two forcible rape cases he might receive the death sentence; that he was entering these pleas of guilty of his own free will. In answer to the question whether any threats or promises had been made to induce him to withdraw his three pleas of not guilty and enter pleas of guilty appellant answered 'No, sir.' Appellant acknowledged his understanding that his lawyer had not recommended entry of pleas of guilty in these cases, and stated that he was asking the court to accept guilty pleas to these three charges. Appellant was offered but declined the opportunity to make a statement. He had no legal reason why sentence should not be imposed upon him on the three charges. Thereupon the court received the three pleas and assessed life imprisonment on each charge, the three sentences to run concurrently.
While the court did not elicit from the lips of the appellant a recital of the acts he committed, this was not necessary as long as the accused understood the facts as recited by the prosecuting official. From what transpired at the hearing and from the fact that the three pleas of guilty were accepted we must credit the circuit judge with having observed accused and having come to the conclusion that the accused understood what was taking place. 'That an accused understands charges with which he is confronted may be deduced from yes and no answers as well as from descriptive factual recitals by accused.' Robinson v. State, 482 S.W.2d 492, 495(5) (Mo.1972). It is true that appellant was not told that the court was not bound by the recommendations made to the court on the matter of punishment, but this was not necessary where the court made and entered the order of concurrent life sentences appellant requested. The range of punishment on the assault charge was not stated (the court did indicate that it graded down to less than life imprisonment) but this is immaterial, since appellant himself acknowledged that he was ready to accept a life sentence on that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rice v. State
...counsel was so incompetent that the plea was not entered voluntarily and with understanding of the nature of the charge. Matthews v. State, 501 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Mo.1973); Barylski v. State, 473 S.W.2d 399, 402 (Mo.1971). The claim that an attorney's investigation of a case is inadequate must ......
-
Green v. State, WD
...unless counsel was so incompetent that the plea was not entered voluntarily and with understanding of the charge. Matthews v. State, 501 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Mo.1973). See also DeConink v. State, 557 S.W.2d 698 (Mo.App.1977). Upon a failure to show that the plea was not voluntarily and knowingly ......
-
Perkins v. State, WD80745
...his guilty plea [does] not prejudice the plea where the sentence imposed was agreed upon in advance." Id. (citing Matthews v. State, 501 S.W.2d 44, 46 (Mo. 1973)); accord Holland v. State, 990 S.W.2d 24, 29 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). Perkins and the State agreed prior to sentencing that his sent......
-
McKinney v. State
...unless defense counsel was incompetent in such a manner as to affect the voluntariness and understanding of the pleas. Matthews v. State, 501 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Mo.1973); Barylski v. State, 473 S.W.2d 399, 402 (Mo.1971); Childs v. State, 625 S.W.2d 195-96 (Mo.App.1981); Avilla v. State, 624 S.W......
-
The Unappealing Nature of Guilty Plea Agreements: Johnson's Restrictions on Appeals of Intellectual Disabilities.
...152. (86.) Id. (87.) Id. (88.) Id. at 153 (citing State v. Roll, 942 S.W.2d 370, 375 (Mo. 1997) (en banc)); see also Matthews v. State, 501 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Mo. 1973); Barylski v. State, 473 S.W.2d 399, 402 (Mo. 1971) (per (89.) Cooper, 356 S.W.3d at 157. (90.) Id. (citing Roll, 942 S.W.2d at......