Simons v. State
| Decision Date | 31 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 14524,14524 |
| Citation | 719 S.W.2d 479 |
| Parties | Wayne Anthony SIMONS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ginger Wagner, Conklin, Holden and Wagner, Springfield, for movant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant entered pleas of guilty on four counts of burglary in the first degree and one count of rape. He was sentenced to four terms of 15 years and one term of 30 years to run concurrently. After an evidentiary hearing, his motion under Rule 27.26 attacking those sentences was denied. He presents two points on appeal.
Movant's first point asserts ineffective assistance of counsel in that counsel failed to contact and explore witnesses and defenses as requested by movant. It is axiomatic that "[a]fter a guilty plea, the incompetence of counsel is material only to the extent that it bears on the voluntariness of the plea." Allen v. State, 588 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo.App.1979).
The Supreme Court of the United States has established a two-part standard for evaluating claims of a convicted defendant of ineffective assistance of counsel. "[T]he defendant must show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984). He 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., 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d at 698. The standard of the federal courts has been adopted by the courts of this state. Seales v. State, 580 S.W.2d 733 (Mo. banc 1979).
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently held the standard of Strickland to be applicable to the evaluation of claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by defendants who pleaded guilty. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). In so holding the court said, "In other words, in order to satisfy the 'prejudice' requirement, the defendant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." Id., 474 U.S. at ----, 106 S.Ct. at 370, 88 L.Ed.2d at 210. The court added, "these predictions of the outcome at a possible trial, where necessary, should be made objectively, without regard for the 'idiosyncrasies of the particular decision maker.' " Id., 474 U.S. at ----, 106 S.Ct. at 371, 88 L.Ed.2d at 211. Of particular importance to this case is an illustration of the application of that standard.
For example, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to investigate or discover potentially exculpatory evidence, the determination whether the error "prejudiced" the defendant by causing him to plead guilty rather than go to trial will depend on the likelihood that discovery of the evidence would have led counsel to change his recommendation as to the plea.
Id., 474 U.S. at ----, 106 S.Ct. at 370, 88 L.Ed.2d at 210. Applying the reasoning of Seales, the standard announced in Hill is applicable to this case.
In deciding movant's first point against those standards, it is appropriate to consider the requirements applicable to a similar claim by a convicted defendant. Such a movant must show that counsel's omission "had a material effect on the outcome of the trial." Lockett v. State, 679 S.W.2d 337, 340 (Mo.App.1984). He is required to show what the testimony of the witnesses would have been and how it would have helped him. Ryder v. State, 657 S.W.2d 64 (Mo.App.1983). The movant has the burden of proving that the witnesses' "testimony would have provided a viable defense." Franklin v. State, 655 S.W.2d 561, 566 (Mo.App.1983).
The following is a summary of movant's testimony concerning this point. He informed counsel that an aunt, uncle and cousins could testify that movant customarily played basketball with his cousin everyday at the times the four offenses were committed. Movant admitted he was not with his cousin at the times of those offenses and none of the witnesses could testify to his whereabouts. He said they could also testify he was not the type to commit rape. He concluded he didn't know if his lawyer talked to those persons, but the lawyer said he couldn't use them as witnesses.
As the trial court found, the named persons could provide no defense. Their testimony concerning the "type of person" of the movant would not have been admissible. If movant's counsel did not interview those persons, which the movant did not establish, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. William J. Bradley
...513 A.2d 373; Marsillett v. State (Ind.1986), 495 N.E.2d 699; Summit v. Blackburn (5th Cir.1986), 795 F.2d 1237; Simons v. State (Mo.App.1986), 719 S.W.2d 479; State v. Long (Mont.1986), 726 P.2d Coleman v. Brown (10th Cir.1986), 802 F.2d 1227; and State v. Tapia (Ariz.1986), 725 P.2d 1096 ......
-
People v. Barnslater
...a client of the possibility of receiving the maximum sentence if the case goes to trial is not a form of coercion"); Simons v. State, 719 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Mo.App.1986) ("movant first argues that his counsel's advice of a possible 100-year sentence coerced him into an involuntary plea of gui......
-
State v. Curtis
...a client of the possibility of receiving the maximum sentence if the case goes to trial is not a form of coercion"; Simons v. State, 719 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Mo.App.1986) ("movant first argues that his counsel's advice of a possible 100-year sentence coerced him into an involuntary plea of guil......
-
Moore v. State
...insisted on going to trial instead of accepting the plea agreement. Choate v. State, 762 S.W.2d 87, 90 (Mo.App.1988); Simons v. State, 719 S.W.2d 479, 481 (Mo.App. 1986). "[A]n able attorney will endeavor to help his or her client understand all of the possible consequences of alternatives ......