Turner v. State
| Citation | 384 S.W.3d 722 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 31756.,SD 31756. |
| Parties | Darrell TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
384 S.W.3d 722
Darrell TURNER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. SD 31756.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Southern District,
Division Two.
Dec. 4, 2012.
[384 S.W.3d 723]
Mark Allen Grothoff, Columbia, or appellant.
Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Jennifer Ann Wideman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J.
Darrell Turner (Movant) appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief.1 He charges trial attorney William Nacy with ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) in failing to investigate and call two alibi witnesses.
The motion court did not clearly err in denying relief. We affirm.
Movant's convictions for first-degree assault, first-degree burglary, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action were affirmed in State v. Turner, 242 S.W.3d 770 (Mo.App.2008), from which we borrow relevant facts without further attribution.
On the night in question, Christina Jones drove Movant to the victim's home. Movant went in alone, forced everyone to the floor, eventually shot the victim in the head, then ran back to the car. It was a few minutes after 11 p.m. They drove 45 minutes to Jefferson City where Movant bought whiskey at a supermarket and went to a club. His handprint was found on Jones' car and his image was captured by the supermarket's surveillance cameras. The state theorized that Movant acted as a “hit man” on behalf of Jones' drug-dealer boyfriend.
The defense portrayed Jones as a liar, willing to frame Movant for a shooting actually committed by her drug-dealing lover. Alibi was not emphasized, but Movant's sister offered one, claiming they were both at the club until midnight, then went to her home where Movant spent the night.
After losing his appeal, Movant sought Rule 29.15 relief. He alleged that he had told Nacy that Samantha Lampe and Kathy McKenvie would corroborate his sister's account and bolster his alibi defense, but Nacy did not investigate or call these potential witnesses.
At the evidentiary hearing, Lampe, McKenvie, Movant, and Nacy testified. Lampe said she last saw Movant at 8 or 9 p.m. that night. McKenvie said she saw Movant and his sister at the club about 11
[384 S.W.3d 724]
p.m. McKenvie testified that she helped Movant take his sister home, then Movant and McKenvie drove to McKenvie's home where they both spent the night.
Movant, who did not testify at his trial, confirmed McKenvie's account. He said he gave his alibi information to Nacy, but did not know if Nacy investigated it further.
Nacy testified that he took over the case several weeks before trial and reviewed everything pertaining to the case. Regarding Lampe and McKenvie, Nacy said “I've never heard these names before or if I had I don't have any recollection. They weren't significant. If I had them they weren't significant to the extent they were ever considered to be needed at trial[,]” and “[t]he fact I don't remember indicates that they weren't in our plans whatsoever.”
In denying relief, the motion court found inter alia no reasonable probability that testimony by Lampe and McKenvie would have changed the trial's outcome.
Movant had to show both deficient performance by Nacy and resulting prejudice; failure to prove either prong was fatal to his IAC claim. Barnes v. State, 334 S.W.3d 717, 721...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State
...was ineffective for failing to present evidence of an alibi, the evidence must constitute a viable defense. See Turner v. State, 384 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012).First, we note that the SLCRC records would not have constituted a viable alibi defense. The State charged King with two ......
-
King v. State, ED103672
...counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of an alibi, the evidence must constitute a viable defense. See Turner v. State, 384 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012). First, we note that the SLCRC records would not have constituted a viable alibi defense. The State charged King ......
-
Burns v. State
...reasonable probability of a different result but for counsel's deficient performance”—our PCR inquiry ends. See Turner v. State, 384 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Mo.App.2012). We deny Point II and affirm the judgment.NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, P.J., and WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., C.J., concur. 1.State v. Bu......