Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 05 September 2000 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) . Louis Wayne Williams, Respondent, v. State of Missouri, Appellant. Case Number: WD57916 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Johnson County, Hon. Joseph P. Dandurand
Counsel for Appellant: Andrea Mazza
Counsel for Respondent: Tara L. Jensen
Opinion Summary:
The state appeals the circuit court's granting of Louis Wayne Williams' amended Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion, which was based on the contention that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. The state argues that the motion court was in error in granting Williams' motion and in amending his sentence because Williams failed to prove his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by a preponderance of the evidence, in that the motion court found that the evidence established that no promises or guarantees had been made to him with regard to jail time credit, and that, in any event, even if he believed that such a promise or guarantee had been made to him, that belief would have been unreasonable under the circumstances.
DISMISSED.
Held: Because the Department of Corrections must allow Williams the relief anyway, in light of the recent ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court in Goings v. Missouri Dept. of Corrections, 6 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. banc 1999), stating that the statute in question, section 558.031, requires such a credit for time served, and because we believe that Williams is, therefore, also entitled to "credit for time served" and is legally entitled to the ninety days' credit which the motion court gave him, the court fails to see any need to address state's the issues on appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is moot, and the appeal is dismissed on the grounds of mootness.
This is an appeal taken by the state from the circuit court's granting of Louis Wayne Williams' amended Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion, which was based on his contention that he was denied the right to effective assistance of counsel. The state argues that the motion court was in error in granting Williams' motion, in that his belief that he would be granted credit for time served was not reasonable under the circumstances and because the trial court stated that it did not find that Williams was promised that he would receive such credit. We dismiss the appeal on grounds of mootness.
Williams was indicted on a charge of forgery, pursuant to section 565.020, RSMo 1994, in connection with trying to pass a forged personal check. After his arrest on the forgery charge, Williams posted bond and was free on $15,000.00 bond, but only for one day. Because Williams was on parole at the time from serving a previous sentence with the Department of Corrections and because his indictment on this new offense counted as a parole violation, he was picked up the next day as a parole violator and served the next ninety days in the Clay County Jail while awaiting trial on the forgery charge. He entered a plea of guilty and was sentenced to two and one-half years, pursuant to a plea agreement with the prosecutor's office. At the plea entry and sentencing hearing, his attorney asked that Williams receive credit for the ninety days he had spent in the Clay County Jail awaiting sentencing on this matter. Judge Dandurand granted the request for credit for time served, stating, "Court grants defendant credit for 90 days time served."
Upon being taken into the custody of the Department of Corrections, Williams learned that the Department did not grant him credit for the ninety days time served, despite the order of the Court. Williams filed a timely Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief based on the fact that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in that he relied upon his plea counsel's assurances that if the judge granted their request for credit for time served he would receive it.
At Williams' Rule 24.035 evidentiary hearing, his plea counsel testified that she had discussed with Williams the fact that she could not promise him anything and that the jail-time credit was not a part of the plea agreement with the state. Williams' testimony was flatly contradictory to that of his counsel. Williams testified at the hearing that he understood he would get the credit, or "else [he] wouldn't have pleaded to jail." Williams stated that plea counsel "assured [him] that [he] would get it." At the close of the evidence, the court found that no promises or guarantees had been offered to the defendant, but it ascertained that his plea was not voluntary because the defendant had believed that if the court granted jail time credit, he would receive it. The court stated, "we were wrong . . . the defendant and defendant's counsel and the Court, we were all wrong when we thought he would get 90 days credit." Based on this, the court amended Williams' sentence to imprisonment for a term of two years, three months.
In this appeal of the motion court's granting of Williams' Rule 24.035 motion, the state's sole point on appeal states that the motion court erred in amending Williams' sentence because Williams failed to prove his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by a preponderance of the evidence, in that the motion court found that the evidence established that no promises or guarantees had been made to him with regard to jail time credit, and that, in any event, even if he believed that such a promise or guarantee had been made to him, that belief would have been unreasonable under the circumstances.
Under the portion of Rule 24.035 that establishes the appellate standard of review on a post-conviction relief motion, this court is "limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the trial court are clearly erroneous." Rule 24.035(j).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Burk
- State v. Sprester, 23292.
-
State ex rel. Gater v. Burgess
...was in custody after his arrest on the Stoddard County charge and prior to sentencing on that charge. Id. See also Williams v. State, 26 S.W.3d 605, 606-08 (Mo.App. W.D.2000) (where defendant's parole was revoked because his arrest and indictment for forgery was a parole violation, defendan......