State v. Valdez, s. WD
| Decision Date | 16 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | Nos. WD,s. WD |
| Citation | 851 S.W.2d 20 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Miguel VALDEZ, Appellant. Miguel VALDEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. 45833, WD 46592. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.
Before LOWENSTEIN, C.J., and TURNAGE and BRECKENRIDGE, JJ.
Miguel Valdez was found guilty by a jury of attempted robbery in the first degree §§ 564.011.1, 569.020.1, RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015.1. The jury assessed punishment at fifteen years imprisonment for the attempted robbery and seventy-five years imprisonment for the armed criminal action. It was agreed by all parties that the court would sentence Valdez to a combined total of twenty-five years in exchange for Valdez' voluntary withdrawal of his motion for new trial and his agreement not to appeal and his waiver of his right to file a motion pursuant to Rule 29.15. In accordance with the agreement, the court sentenced Valdez to a total of twenty-five years imprisonment. Notwithstanding the agreement, Valdez filed a direct appeal and a 29.15 motion. Valdez contends the waivers of his right to file a direct appeal and a Rule 29.15 motion were not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made. Appeal dismissed.
On June 19, 1991, after a three-day jury trial, Miguel Valdez was found guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree and armed criminal action. The jury recommended fifteen years imprisonment for the attempted robbery and seventy-five years imprisonment for the armed criminal action.
Valdez subsequently filed a motion for new trial and the trial court held a sentencing hearing. At the hearing, counsel for the parties informed the court that Valdez had agreed to withdraw his motion for new trial and waive his right to appeal and his right to seek state post-conviction relief in exchange for an agreement that would limit his sentence from a potential ninety years imprisonment to a total of twenty-five years imprisonment. Prior to making the agreement, Valdez was advised of all of his rights and was informed that, pursuant to the agreement, he would be withdrawing his motion for new trial and waiving his right to a direct appeal as well as his right to post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15.
In accordance with the terms of the agreement and following Valdez' withdrawal of his motion for new trial, the court sentenced Valdez to fifteen years imprisonment on the attempted robbery count and twenty-five years imprisonment on the armed criminal action count with sentences to run concurrently for a total of twenty-five years.
Notwithstanding the agreement, Valdez filed a motion for leave to file his notice of appeal from his convictions out of time and to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal which the court granted. Thereupon, Valdez filed his notice of appeal. Valdez also filed a pro se motion under Rule 29.15 seeking to set aside his convictions and sentences claiming ineffective assistance of counsel as well as a variety of alleged trial errors that had originally appeared in his motion for new trial. Upon motion by the State, the trial court dismissed Valdez' 29.15 motion and found that he had made a knowing and voluntary waiver of his rights under Rule 29.15. Valdez appealed. Both cases have been consolidated on appeal.
The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeals with this court on the ground that Valdez had voluntarily waived his right to a direct appeal and to seek post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 in exchange for a reduced sentence. In response to the State's motion, this court issued an order stating that this case would be briefed on the sole issue of whether or not the appeal should be dismissed based upon the grounds alleged by the State.
On appeal, the State contends that the waivers of the right to file a direct appeal and to file a Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief were made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. Valdez contends they were not and asserts that the mere fact that he filed a 29.15 motion and a notice of appeal after he had agreed to waive such rights indicates his lack of understanding and voluntariness of entering into such an agreement. He also claims that he was unable to adequately understand the proceedings leading up to the waiver.
A defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cain
...of the bargain,' an appellate court will not hesitate in holding the defendant to his part of the bargain." Id. (quoting State v. Valdez, 851 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Mo.App.1993)). While it is well settled that a defendant in a criminal case may voluntarily waive his right to appeal, "[w]e will not ......
-
Dunkin v. State
...made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.” Jackson v. State, 241 S.W.3d 831, 833 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (citing State v. Valdez, 851 S.W.2d 20, 21–22 (Mo.App. W.D.1993)); see also State v. Harmon, 243 S.W.2d 326, 328, 330 (Mo.1951) ( “A defendant in a criminal case may expressly or by act......
-
State v. Green
...the `benefit of the bargain,' an appellate court will not hesitate in holding the defendant to his part of the bargain." State v. Valdez, 851 S.W.2d 20, 22 (Mo.App.1993). The record developed at the sentencing hearing conclusively establishes Defendant's voluntary waiver of his Prosecutor: ......
-
State v. Sanning
...State v. Green, 189 S.W.3d 655, 657 (Mo.App. S.D.2006); State v. Reed, 968 S.W.2d 246, 247 (Mo.App. E.D.1998); State v. Valdez, 851 S.W.2d 20, 21-22 (Mo.App. W.D.1993). We will conclude that a defendant has waived his right to appeal where his intention to voluntarily waive appears in the r......