Taylor v. State
| Citation | 649 S.W.3d 378 |
| Decision Date | 16 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | ED 109692 |
| Parties | Chauncy TAYLOR, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Michael R. Durham, Special Public Defender, 211 S. Broadway, 40th Floor, St. Louis, MO 63102, For Movant/Appellant.
Nathan J. Aquino, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, For Respondent.
Chauncy Taylor (Movant) appeals from the motion court's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order denying his Rule 29.151 post-conviction motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment or sentence after an evidentiary hearing. Movant argues the denial of his motion was clearly erroneous because he proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his counsel was ineffective for failing to adduce evidence that the victim's father had brought the victim to the Children's Advocacy Center for a forensic interview, to Movant's prejudice. Finding no clear error, we affirm.
Movant seeks post-conviction relief from his conviction and sentence for first-degree statutory sodomy and first-degree child molestation, stemming from two separate incidents in which he assaulted his then-girlfriend's child, K.F. (Victim), when she was between the ages of eight and twelve years old.2
Trial and sentencing
The evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, is as follows.
Movant was the then-boyfriend of Victim's mother (Mother) and was the father of Victim's youngest brother. For a period of a few years, including between 2011 and 2015, Movant sporadically lived with Mother, Victim, and Victim's siblings. Movant would occasionally watch Victim and her younger siblings when Mother was at work.
In February 2015, at the end of a school day, Victim approached her teacher, "panicked" and "very upset," and said she did not want to go home. Victim relayed that "someone had touched her inappropriately and she was afraid it was going to happen again and that she didn't want to leave." The teacher escorted Victim to the school counselor's office, where Victim confided that "her mom's boyfriend was doing inappropriate things to her." Victim explained that, the day before, Movant had put his penis inside Victim's mouth, attempted to put his penis inside her vagina, and threatened to kill her and one of her brothers with a knife. Victim also divulged to the school counselor that this was not the first incident of Movant inappropriately touching her.
Investigating detectives scheduled a time for Victim to visit the Child Advocacy Center (CAC). When Victim first went to the CAC, she was "freaking out" and was unable to be interviewed. Mother was resistant to making a second appointment and Victim did not appear for the rescheduled interview. Eventually, in April 2015, Victim was interviewed by Mr. Anthony Harper at the CAC. A video of the forensic interview was admitted and published for the jury.
During her trial testimony and during the interview, Victim described the February 2015 incident. In addition to what she told her school counselor, Victim added that during that incident Movant put his mouth on her breast. Victim also described an incident that occurred sometime between October 2011 and 2013, in which Movant coerced Victim into putting her mouth on his penis by threatening to beat her with an extension cord if she did not comply. Victim detailed a third incident, in December 2014, in which Movant attempted to put his penis in Victim's vagina after threatening Victim with a knife.
Mother testified that, on the night of the October 2011-2013 incident when Mother went to check on her sleeping children, she noticed Victim was not in her bed and the living room light was on. Mother found Victim in the living room and Victim said she was cleaning, which Mother described as "very odd." The morning after that incident, Victim confided in Mother what had occurred the previous night. Mother confronted Movant later that evening and told him to leave the house. After a few weeks, Movant returned and occasionally stayed at the house.
The defense theory presented at trial was two-fold: first, that Movant was out of town on the dates of the alleged December 2014 incident; and second, that Movant's role in Victim's father being kicked out of the house in January 2015 influenced Victim to falsely accuse Movant of assault.
After six hours of deliberation, a jury found Movant guilty of one count of first-degree statutory sodomy based on placing his penis in Victim's mouth between October 2011 and October 2013, and one count of first-degree child molestation based on placing his mouth on Victim's breast in February 2015. The jury acquitted Movant on the remaining ten counts. The trial court sentenced Movant as a prior and persistent offender3 to concurrent sentences of 30 years for statutory sodomy and 15 years for child molestation, for a total of 30 years in the Missouri Department of Corrections. This Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence on direct appeal. State v. Taylor, 577 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019).
Post-conviction proceedings
Movant timely filed a pro se post-conviction motion under Rule 29.15 to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment or sentence.
After her appointment, Movant's post-conviction counsel was granted an additional 30 days to file an amended motion, making the motion due in February 2020.4 An amended motion was not filed until May 4, 2020. With this amended motion, post-conviction counsel asked the court to excuse the untimely filing pursuant to Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1991). The motion court found that Movant had been abandoned by post-conviction counsel and proceeded to consider the claims raised in the amended motion. See id. at 495.
In the amended motion, Movant alleged that his trial counsel (Trial Counsel) was ineffective for failing "to adduce evidence, through the testimony of [Victim], Anthony Harper, or other witness[es], that Sanquel Ford, [Victim's] father, brought her to the Children's Advocacy Center ("CAC") for her forensic interview."5 Movant argued that, had this evidence been presented, there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have found Movant not guilty on all charges.
The motion court judge, who was the same judge who presided over Movant's trial and sentencing, held an evidentiary hearing on the Rule 29.15 motion. Movant testified by deposition and Trial Counsel testified in person at the hearing.6 As relevant here, Movant testified that one of the arguments advanced in his defense was that Victim was being influenced by Ford to falsely accuse Movant. Movant confirmed he "was aware that there was some evidence, in the discovery ... that Sanquel Ford actually brought [Victim] to the Children's Advocacy Center" and that he wanted Trial Counsel to adduce that evidence to show Ford's influence over Victim. Trial Counsel testified he reviewed the summary that accompanied the CAC interview, which indicated that Ford brought Victim to her interview. Trial Counsel admitted he did not present this evidence at trial and stated that "[i]t was probably just oversight on [his] part."
After the hearing, the motion court denied all claims in Movant's amended motion. In denying the claim at issue, the motion court explained that Movant presented no evidence that any witness's testimony that Ford drove Victim to the CAC would have supported a viable defense, and therefore the court could not find Trial Counsel's "strategy was unreasonable based on the evidence in the case." This appeal follows.7
Appellate courts review the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for whether the motion court's findings and conclusions are "clearly erroneous." Rule 29.15(k); Shockley v. State, 579 S.W.3d 881, 892 (Mo. banc 2019). Findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous when a review of the record leaves the court with "the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made." Shockley v. State, 579 S.W.3d at 892, quoting Swallow v. State, 398 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 2013). "The motion court's findings are presumed correct." Id. An appellate court may affirm the judgment on any legal ground supported by the record. Swallow, 398 S.W.3d at 3.
In his sole point on appeal, Movant argues the motion court clearly erred in denying his amended motion because he established by a preponderance of the evidence that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and was prejudiced. According to Movant, Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to adduce evidence that Victim's father brought her to the CAC for a forensic interview and that, had this evidence been presented to the jury, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of trial would have been different. We disagree.
Law governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims
When a post-conviction claim is grounded in alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show that counsel failed to meet the two-prong test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Shockley, 579 S.W.3d at 892. Under Strickland, a movant must show: (1) counsel's performance was deficient in that counsel failed to exercise the level of skill, care, and diligence that reasonably competent counsel would exercise in a similar situation; and (2) movant was prejudiced by that failure. Id.; Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. A movant arguing for post-conviction relief bears the burden of proving both deficient performance and prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence. Shockley, 579 S.W.3d at 892.
Movant failed to carry his burden of proving his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by a preponderance of the evidence
In his amended motion, Movant alleged that Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing "to adduce evidence, through the testimony of [Victim], Anthony Harper, or other witness[es], that Sanquel Ford, [Victim's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hollings v. State
... ... given the evidence presented ... against Movant at trial. The State argues Movant's ... "failure to introduce sufficient supporting evidence at ... the evidentiary hearing is fatal to his post-conviction ... claim." Taylor v. State , 649 S.W.3d 378, 384 ... (Mo. App. E.D. 2022). The State asserts Movant's claim is ... unproven because he failed to submit any evidence ... demonstrating the witnesses could be located, would testify, ... or that their testimony would produce a viable defense, ... ...
- Billingsley v. State