Micheaux v. State

• Docket Number: WD85462
• Decision Date: 29 August 2023
• Parties: JABYN MICHEAUX, Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

1

JABYN MICHEAUX, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.

No. WD85462

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Fourth Division

August 29, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The Honorable Charles H. McKenzie, Judge

Before Gary D. Witt, Chief Judge, Presiding, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge and, Mary F. Weir, Special Judge

OPINION

CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, JUDGE

Jabyn Micheaux ("Micheaux") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035^[1] motion for post-conviction relief. Micheaux claims that, contrary to the motion court's findings and conclusions, he was deprived of the constitutional and statutory right to be physically present in the courtroom at the time he entered Alford pleas.^[2] Micheaux

2

also asserts that the motion court erroneously rejected claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to properly advise him about the effect of running his Missouri sentences concurrently with his Kansas sentence, and failed to provide him with deposition transcripts prior to his plea hearing. Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural History

In September 2020, the State charged Micheaux by superseding grand jury indictment^[3] with two counts of the class A felony of domestic assault in the first degree, two counts of the class B felony of abuse or neglect of a child, and one count of the class C felony of abuse of a child. The trial court appointed counsel to represent Micheaux, but Micheaux later sought and was granted the right to proceed pro se. However, following a hearing in late November 2020, the trial court reappointed trial counsel to represent Micheaux at his request.

Micheaux's case was set for trial on Monday, March 1, 2021. During a February 23, 2021 pre-trial conference, the attorneys for Micheaux and the State advised the trial court that a plea agreement had been reached and asked the trial court to schedule a plea hearing. The State was unwilling to extend the plea offer beyond Friday, February 26, 2021.

3

Thus, the plea hearing was scheduled for very late in the afternoon on Friday, February 26, 2021,^[4] and was scheduled to be conducted by Webex, a two-way live video application. Neither Micheaux nor his attorney objected to the plea hearing being conducted by Webex.

During the plea hearing, and consistent with the plea agreement, the State sought and secured leave to file an information in lieu of an indictment. The information reduced the two counts of domestic assault in the first degree to class B felonies and dismissed all other charges.

Consistent with the plea agreement, the State recommended that Micheaux be sentenced to seven years' imprisonment on each of the domestic assault counts, with the sentences to run concurrently to one another and concurrently with Micheaux's Kansas sentence.^[5]

The trial court asked the State to clarify the meaning of "run concurrent with the Kansas" sentence. The attorney for the State responded:

I just wanted it to be clear that the State's not seeking consecutive time. [Micheaux's] already been sentenced on that case. The allegations in that case postdate this case so I don't think that there is really a reasonable circumstance in which it would ever run consecutive, but I just want it to be clear that's not the request here

The trial court then raised the issue of credit for time served:

4

[I]n other words, I would propose that [Micheaux] certainly would get credit for any day that he served in the Jackson County Detention Center including if any of those days were being served where he was also getting credit for such time in Kansas, but I don't know that under the law I can give him credit for any time he served in the Kansas [Department of Corrections] on this case....Is that your understanding?

The attorney for the State responded that, unless the Missouri warrant was in effect, Micheaux would not be able to receive credit for time served in Kansas. After further discussion about the availability of credit for time served and the trial court's statement that "the law is going to guide us," Micheaux's trial counsel stated:

Judge, I don't think anyone's asking you to give him credit for time that he served in the Kansas [Department of Corrections]. We're just saying that it should be concurrent so that when he's released on parole, if he's still on parole in Kansas, it runs concurrently and that parole in Kansas isn't due anything. He has more time on this case and Kansas is a separate case and we understand that. No one's anticipating that he's getting--we've talked about this already. This is about these being concurrent in Kansas in case there's any additional parole or things that happen when he gets released.

The trial court agreed to impose sentences with a direction that they run concurrent with one another and with the Kansas sentence, but made it clear that the law and parole guidelines would dictate the degree to which that directive could be enforced with respect to the Kansas sentence.

Micheaux was then sworn, and entered Alford pleas to two counts of the class B felony of domestic assault in the first degree. The trial court conducted an extensive guilty plea colloquy, including confirming that Micheaux was knowingly and voluntarily waiving constitutional and statutory rights that would have been available to Micheaux had he not pleaded guilty and instead proceeded to trial the following Monday. During this questioning, the trial court secured Micheaux's affirmative response that although he

5

was participating in the guilty plea hearing by Webex, he understood that had he proceeded to trial, he would have been physically present in the courtroom.

Trial counsel then inquired of Micheaux to lay a factual basis for his Alford pleas. The trial court followed with additional questions of Micheaux that assured his satisfaction with trial counsel's performance. The trial court accepted Micheaux's Alford pleas to two counts of the class B felony of domestic assault in the first degree. Micheaux was afforded the opportunity for allocution, and the trial court then imposed sentence consistent with the plea agreement and entered a judgment accordingly.

Micheaux timely filed a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion on March 11, 2021. The motion court appointed counsel, and counsel filed a timely Rule 24.035 amended motion ("Amended Motion") on September 23, 2021.^[6] The Amended Motion claimed that the trial court's judgment violated the United States and Missouri Constitutions, and Missouri law in four respects: (1) in accepting Micheaux's Alford pleas in violation of his statutory right to be physically present at the plea hearing; (2) in accepting Micheaux's Alford pleas in violation of his constitutional right to be physically present at the plea hearing; (3) because Micheaux received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to properly advise him of the effect of running his Missouri sentences concurrently with his Kansas sentence; and (4) because Micheaux received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to tell Micheaux about the deposition

6

testimony from two witnesses and failed to give Micheaux copies of those deposition transcripts before his plea hearing.

The motion court held an evidentiary hearing on the Amended Motion on January 7, 2022. The motion court received exhibits and heard testimony from trial counsel and Micheaux. The motion court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment on May 17, 2022 ("Judgment"). The Judgment rejected each of the claims in the Amended Motion. The Judgment concluded that although Micheaux had a right to be physically present in the courtroom during the guilty plea hearing, Micheaux waived that right. The Judgment also concluded that Micheaux failed to meet his burden to establish that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that Micheaux suffered prejudice as a result of trial counsel's performance in connection with both of his claims of ineffective assistance.

Micheaux appeals. Additional facts are discussed as necessary in addressing Micheaux's claims on appeal.

Standard of Review

Our review of the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion is "limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the [motion] court are clearly erroneous." Rule 24.035(k). "A judgment is clearly erroneous when, in light of the entire record, the court is left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made." Courtney v. State, 662 S.W.3d 344, 349 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) (quoting Wynes v. State, 628 S.W.3d 786, 794 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021)). We presume that the motion court's findings are correct and defer to its credibility determinations. Id.

7

Analysis

Micheaux's four points on appeal allege the motion court committed error in denying each of the claims in his Amended Motion.

Points One and Two: The Motion Court Did Not Clearly Err in Concluding that Micheaux Waived the Right to Be Physically Present in the Courtroom During the Guilty Plea Hearing

In his first and second points on appeal, Micheaux argues that the motion court clearly erred in concluding that he waived his right pursuant to section 546.030^[7] (Point One), and pursuant to the Missouri and United States Constitutions (Point Two) to be physically present in the courtroom during the guilty plea hearing. Both points depend for their success on the contention that the face of the record establishes that Micheaux did not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waive his statutory and constitutional right to be physically present in the courtroom, and that the trial court's acceptance of his Alford pleas and imposition of sentence was thus a jurisdictional defect that can be raised in a Rule 24.035 motion.

The motion court properly found that...