State v. Banks

Decision Date15 April 2008
Docket NumberNo. WD 66035.,WD 66035.
Citation259 S.W.3d 49
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Ozie BANKS, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Shaun J. MacKelprang, Jefferson City, MO, for appellant.

Susan L. Hogan, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.

Before HARDWICK, P.J., SMART and WELSH, J.J.

LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Judge.

Following a bench trial, the circuit court convicted Ozie Banks of forcible rape and sodomy and sentenced him to consecutive fifty-year prison terms on each count. On appeal, Banks contends the court erred in denying his motion to enforce a prior plea agreement and to dismiss the charges. He also contends the court erred in applying the law on sentencing because the fifty-year prison terms exceeded the statutory maximum for his offenses. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the cause for re-sentencing.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 22, 1986, T.T. was raped and sodomized by an attacker in her apartment, located in the Westport area of Kansas City. Police were unable to identify a suspect in the crime until eighteen years later, in February 2004, when a DNA profile was completed on the spermatozoa found on vaginal and rectal swabs retained from T.T.'s rape examination. The profile matched the DNA of Ozie Banks. On June 11, 2004, Banks was indicted on one count of forcible rape, Section 566.030, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984, and one count of forcible sodomy, Section 566.060, RSMo Cum.Supp.1984, in connection with the assault against T.T.

Banks filed a motion to enforce a prior plea agreement and to dismiss the rape and sodomy charges. Banks argued that he pled guilty to three offenses in 1991 and, in exchange, the State had promised not to file additional charges regarding any other crimes he may have been involved in prior to that time. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion to enforce the plea agreement and allowed the charges to proceed to trial.

Banks waived his right to a jury trial. The circuit court found Banks guilty of both charges as class A felonies and sentenced him to consecutive prison sentences of fifty years for forcible rape and fifty years for sodomy. Banks appeals.

ANALYSIS
A.Motion to Enforce 1991 Plea Agreement and to Dismiss Charges

In his first point, Banks contends the circuit court erred in refusing to enforce a 1991 plea agreement in which the State promised not to file additional charges against him. Banks asserts the State "reneged" on the agreement by prosecuting him in connection with the 1986 sexual assault of T.T. Based on this alleged violation of the plea bargain, Banks argues that he was entitled to specific performance by dismissal of the forcible rape and sodomy charges.

On appeal of a motion to dismiss for breach of a plea agreement, we review the circuit court's decision for abuse of discretion and will reverse only if the decision is clearly erroneous. State v. Wright, 120 S.W.3d 792, 794 (Mo.App.2003); Proctor v. State, 809 S.W.2d 32, 35-36 (Mo.App. 1991).

When a guilty plea depends in any significant degree on a promise by or agreement with the prosecutor such that the promise or agreement could be characterized as inducement or consideration of the plea, the promise must be fulfilled. Ivory v. State, 211 S.W.3d 185, 188 (Mo. App.2007). If the prosecutor breaches such an agreement, the defendant is entitled to relief of specific performance or withdrawal of the guilty plea. Evans v. State, 134 S.W.3d 725, 727-28 (Mo.App. 2004); Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 267, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971) (Douglas J. concurring). However, the defendant is not entitled to rely on an unrealized expectation in seeking relief if the expectation is unreasonable. Forsythe v. State, 779 S.W.2d 309, 311 (Mo.App. 1989). "Where there is no reasonable basis for the belief in light of the guilty plea record, [the defendant] is not entitled to relief." McMahon v. State, 569 S.W.2d 753, 758 (Mo.banc 1978).

The facts underlying Banks' motion to enforce plea agreement/motion to dismiss are as follows. On April 25, 1991, Banks agreed to a plea bargain on charges arising from three separate cases. In CR90-2503, Banks pled guilty to rape and armed criminal action in exchange for consecutive ten-year prison sentences on each count. In CR91-2085, Banks pled guilty to first-degree attempted burglary, and in CR91-2086, he pled guilty to second-degree burglary. In exchange for these pleas, Banks was sentenced to three-year terms for each burglary count, to run concurrently with each other and the sentences in CR90-2503. All three of the cases involved crimes that occurred in the Westport area during 1990.

At the plea hearing, the prosecutor informed the court that Banks had been a suspect in two other rape cases for which the State had declined to file charges as a result of the plea bargain. The prosecutor explained that some of the State's evidence would not have been admissible at trial due to the misconduct of a police detective, Ashley Hurn, in investigating a series of rape cases in the Westport area during 1990. The prosecutor summarized the plea bargain as follows:

Additionally, the State promises not to file any other cases for which Mr. Banks may have been a suspect in this series of offenses. The State has been provided with only two police files regarding additional cases. So for the record, I will state that as a result of the plea today the State will decline charges in the police file number 90-007936 and 90-035634. Should there be any other cases brought to our attention, again, pursuant to this series of offenses, they will not be filed upon by our office as a result of this plea bargain.

The court accepted the plea bargain after Banks said he understood the terms and agreed that it was in his best interest.

Banks was incarcerated pursuant to the plea bargain. The Parole Board scheduled him for release on May 29, 2004. Four days prior to his anticipated release, police notified Banks that DNA testing had linked him to the 1986 sexual assault of T.T. He was subsequently returned to Kansas City to face charges of forcible rape and sodomy.

Banks moved to dismiss the charges based on the 1991 plea agreement. He provided the court with a copy of the plea hearing transcript. He argued that, in exchange for his guilty plea, the State had agreed to waive prosecution of any other crimes he committed prior to the plea. The circuit court overruled the motion based on the statements made by the prosecutor at the 1991 plea hearing. The court noted that Banks was a suspect in other crimes at that time and that Detective Hurn was involved in all of the investigations. The prosecutor had promised not to file additional charges in "this series of offenses" for which Banks was under police investigation. Because the offenses under investigation by Hurn all occurred during 1990, the court concluded that the 1986 rape and sodomy of T.T. was not in the "series of offenses" waived by the plea agreement.

Based on our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's denial of the motion to enforce the prior plea agreement. In addition to the reasons explained by the court, the record further supports a finding that Banks is not entitled to dismissal of the charges because there was no reasonable basis for his belief that the State waived prosecution of the 1986 crimes.

Banks argues on appeal that the prosecutor made a "clear promise ... that the State would not file any other cases for which [he] would have been a suspect."...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Scott v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 26, 2013
    ...no reasonable basis for the belief in light of the guilty plea record, [the defendant] is not entitled to relief.’ ” State v. Banks, 259 S.W.3d 49, 51 (Mo.App. W.D.2008) (quoting McMahon, 569 S.W.2d at 758). Here, the motion court erred in denying Scott's request for an evidentiary hearing ......
  • State v. Banks
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 2015
    ...charges because there was no reasonable basis for his belief that the State waived prosecution of the 1986 crimes.” State v. Banks, 259 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Mo.App.W.D.2008). In finding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Banks's motion to enforce the plea agreement, we......
  • State v. Maples
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 9, 2010
    ...to 566.030 to 566.060 did not reduce either the maximum or minimum punishment for forcible rape and forcible sodomy. See State v. Banks, 259 S.W.3d 49, 53 (Mo.App.2008). Moreover, under the amended version of section 1.160, courts no longer have to address whether the penalty or punishment ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT