Mitchell v. State

• Decision Date: 26 August 2014
• Docket Number: No. ED 100563.,ED 100563.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri
• Parties: Mickey H. MITCHELL, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

439 S.W.3d 820

Mickey H. MITCHELL, Movant/Appellant
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 100563.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Aug. 26, 2014.

439 S.W.3d 821

Maleaner R. Harvey, Public Defender's Office, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Todd T. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

PHILIP M. HESS, Judge.

Introduction

Mickey H. Mitchell (Movant) appeals the motion court's denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 amended motion for post-conviction relief. In his sole point relied on, Movant contends that the motion court erred by denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing because counsel pressured him into entering his guilty plea, thereby rendering his plea involuntary, and that, but for counsel's deficient performance, Movant would not have pleaded guilty but would have proceeded to trial. We affirm.

Factual Background

In December 2003, Movant had deviate sexual intercourse with an eight-year-old victim. Once the victim disclosed the abuse, police contacted Movant and Movant, after receiving his Miranda¹ rights, confessed to the sexual contact. Movant was indicted in April 2010 and, in May 2011, Movant entered a blind plea of guilty to first-degree statutory sodomy.² The circuit court accepted the plea and, at a later hearing, sentenced Movant to 15 years' imprisonment in the Department of Corrections.

In August 2011, Movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion seeking postconviction relief. Subsequently, appointed counsel filed an amended motion alleging that defense counsel's performance was “ineffective for pressuring [Movant] to enter a plea of guilty even though [Movant] wanted to proceed to trial to prove his innocence” and that “[b]ut for counsel's ineffectiveness,

439 S.W.3d 822

Movant] would not have entered a plea of guilty, but would have insisted on going to trial.” The motion court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding that “the record clearly refutes Movant's claim that he was pressured into pleading guilty....” This appeal followed.

Standard of Review

We review the denial of a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion to determine whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). Findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, we are left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Mullins v. State, 262 S.W.3d 682, 684 (Mo.App. E.D.2008).

Discussion

In his sole point, Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred by denying his motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing because counsel rendered deficient performance by pressuring Movant into pleading guilty. Movant maintains that counsel's performance rendered his guilty plea involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent and, but for counsel's advice, Movant would not have pleaded guilty and would have proceeded to trial. In response, the State asserts that the motion court did not clearly err by denying Movant's motion without an evidentiary hearing because the record refutes Movant's claim that counsel rendered ineffective performance.

“In order to be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 24.035 motion, the movant must satisfy a three-prong test: (1) he must allege facts not conclusions which, if true, would warrant relief; (2) the facts must not be refuted by the record; and (3) the matters complained of must have resulted in prejudice to the movant.” Smith v. State, 353 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo.App. E.D.2011). If the motion court determines that the record conclusively establishes that the movant is not entitled to relief, then the motion court shall deny an evidentiary hearing. Rule 24.035(h).

“To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of plea counsel, a movant must show that (1) counsel's performance did not conform to the degree of skill, care, and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the movant.” Burnett v. State, 311 S.W.3d 810, 817 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). “When pleading guilty, a movant waives any claim that defense counsel was ineffective except to the extent that counsel's conduct affected the voluntariness and knowledge with which the plea was made.” Nichols v. State, 409 S.W.3d 566, 569 (Mo.App. E.D.2013) (citation and quotations omitted). To establish prejudice where a movant has pleaded guilty, the movant must show that but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would instead have...