Randolph v. State, 55504

• Decision Date: 15 August 1989
• Docket Number: No. 55504,55504
• Parties: Ronnie RANDOLPH, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 692

778 S.W.2d 692

Ronnie RANDOLPH, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 55504.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division One.

Aug. 15, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court

Denied Oct. 10, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 14, 1989.

Nancy A. McKerrow, Columbia, for movant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

A jury convicted movant of capital murder, § 565.001, RSMo 1978, and sentenced him to life imprisonment without possibility of probation or parole for 50 years. We affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Randolph, 729 S.W.2d 524 (Mo.App.1987).

Movant, a black man, filed pro se and amended motions alleging, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Batson claim (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)) when the prosecutor used her six peremptory challenges to remove black persons from the venire panel. In its findings of fact the motion court noted that "[movant's] venire panel was made up of 23 blacks, 37 whites which equates to 38% black and 62% white. After the prosecutor had exercised all [her] strikes to remove members of the black race, the jury consisted of 4 blacks and 8 whites or 33% black and 67% white, nearly the same ratio as the venire panel." The court then concluded, "Without further evidence it is the finding of this Court that [movant] would have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in jury selection on the part of the prosecutor [in] exercis[ing] ... peremptory strikes."

Our review is limited to determining whether the findings, conclusions, and judgment of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j); Brummell v. State, 770 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Mo.App.1989). The motion court's findings, conclusions, and judgment are clearly erroneous only if a review of the entire record leaves the appellate court with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Richardson v. State, 719 S.W.2d 912, 915 (Mo.App.1986).

To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a movant must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). A movant "must satisfy both the performance prong and the prejudice prong to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim." Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo. banc 1987) (emphasis in original).

A motion court and this court may proceed directly to the issue of prejudice without first determining whether counsel's conduct was deficient. Davis v. State, 748 S.W.2d 698, 700 (Mo.App.1988).

The voir dire examination in movant's case occurred on April 28,...