Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 09 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | WD 81000 |
| Citation | 559 S.W.3d 100 |
| Parties | Paul C. WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
559 S.W.3d 100
Paul C. WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
WD 81000
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Filed: October 9, 2018
Damien S. Bhakti De Loyola, Kansas City, for appellant.
Julia E. Neidhardt, Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before Division Two: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges
Lisa White Hardwick, Judge
Paul C. Williams appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after he pled guilty to first-degree statutory rape. Williams contends the motion court clearly erred in finding: (1) that he was not prejudiced by the State’s arguments at sentencing; and (2) that he was not prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to the State’s arguments at sentencing. For reasons explained herein, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Williams engaged in sexual intercourse with his brother-in-law’s twelve-year-old niece, S.M.D., approximately 70 times at locations in Missouri and Kansas over the course of one year. During that year, S.M.D. became pregnant and gave birth to Williams’s child when she was thirteen. In April 2003, Williams was found guilty of three counts of rape and two counts of aggravated criminal sodomy following a jury trial in Kansas. The Kansas district court imposed a sentence of 165 months' imprisonment. Following that proceeding, Williams pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree statutory rape after being charged by the State of Missouri.1
During the sentencing hearing, S.M.D. and members of her family testified about the hardships suffered by S.M.D. as a result of Williams’s actions. The State read into evidence a section of transcript from Williams’s Kansas trial, in which he stated:
Q: Do you see anything wrong with a man your age writing such a letter to a girl her age?
A: If you knew her, if you talked to her, you wouldn't ask the questions.
Q: You don't see her as a child?
A: She really is not a child.
Q: You see her as a grown woman able to make decisions?
A: She is a young adult.
Q: About having sex on her own?
A: She is a young adult.
Q: Do you think she can choose to have sex with you or not?
A: It’s not my department.
Q: You see nothing wrong with this letter?
A: No, I don't.
Q: You see nothing wrong with a 41-year-man [sic] having intercourse with a 13 or 12-year-old girl?
A: That would bother me, yeah.
Q: Would it be wrong?
A: Yeah.
Q: Why did you put things in the letter about not telling people about what you two were doing?
A: After writing the sex episodes, I wanted to come across to show her what would happen if it did. I knew she had a crush on me.
The letter at issue in that line of questioning had previously been presented to the circuit court. In it, Williams professed his love for S.M.D., described, in graphic detail, sexual acts he either had completed or wished to complete with S.M.D., and stated:
Sure, you are 27 years my junior. We both know what they would say, if they knew. They would ask me, ‘What are you doing raping kids now,’ or ‘You know she’s too young for you,’ or ‘What you did was rape pure and simple and you're going to jail for it,’ or ‘You will not be allowed to see her or the baby but you will support them,’ or ‘You know you're breaking up your 20-year marriage for some young jailbait.’ I would hurt my family and will never be trusted again.
In support of its request for a thirty-year sentence, the State directed the court to the presentence investigation report, which said that Williams "adamantly denies that he committed the present offense and further denies that he touched the victim in any sexual manner." Further, Williams was quoted as saying, "They're wanting me to admit to something I didn't do." During closing argument, the State argued, without objection:
Now [t]he [c]ourt’s had a hearing about those statements and those statements are simply this. Those statements are simply statements of a man who is yet to come to grips with what he did. And because of that, he is a high risk of reoffending.
The other thing that [t]he [c]ourt often would consider in a case like this, quite appropriately, is that when a defendant pleads guilty and spares the victim the pain and trauma of a trial, that some measure of mercy is appropriate. And Your Honor, that’s true in most cases. But I submit to you that’s not true in this case.
And the reason is that he’s already inflicted that pain, that suffering, that trauma on this victim, by taking her to trial in Kansas, where the evidence was the same. The DNA evidence was there in the Kansas trial. Everybody knew about that evidence before that trial. He knew about that evidence. He knew about that letter. He knew what he had done, but despite all of that, he put this victim through the pain and suffering of a trial.
And you heard what S.M.D. said. It made her very uncomfortable.
You heard what her aunt said. That having to testify at that trial tore her up.
And so in this case, Your Honor, the fact that this man has pleaded guilty is not a cause for any measure of mercy from [t]his [c]ourt.
In conclusion, Your Honor, I would say this. This crime is unspeakably repugnant. This defendant prayed [sic] on his own niece. He impregnated her and then wrote a letter describing his disgusting acts.
And the truth of the matter is [t]he [c]ourt can't make everything right in this case. It can't make things right for this little girl.
The State then requested the circuit court sentence Williams to a life sentence to be served consecutively with the term of imprisonment in Kansas. Williams requested that he be sentenced to twelve years, preferably executed concurrently with his sentence in Kansas. Williams’s counsel argued that, by pleading guilty, Williams had accepted responsibility for his actions. Immediately prior to the imposition of sentence, Williams asserted, "I didn't take advantage of S.M.D. What was the truth and what was told as lies doesn't matter now. The deed is done. It cannot be undone. We may regret some things that were done in our past, but we cannot change." The circuit court then sentenced Williams to twenty-two years' imprisonment to be served consecutively with his Kansas sentence.
Upon conclusion of his incarceration in Kansas, Williams was delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections on April 28, 2014. On October 14, 2014, Williams timely filed his pro se 24.035 motion.2 The court appointed the Office of the Public Defender to represent Williams and, following the motion court’s finding of abandonment, a timely amended motion was filed on April 15, 2015. Following an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied Williams’s Rule 24.035 motion. Williams appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Our review of the denial of Williams’s Rule 24.035 motion is "limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the trial court are clearly erroneous." Rule 24.035(k) (2014). We presume the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are correct. Nelson v. State , 250 S.W.3d 386, 389 (Mo. App. 2008). "The motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after the review of the record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made." Weeks v. State , 140 S.W.3d 39, 44 (Mo. banc 2004).
To prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Williams had the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defense counsel failed to exercise the customary skill and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney under the same or similar circumstances and that he was thereby prejudiced. Dorsey v. State , 448 S.W.3d 276, 286-87 (Mo. banc 2014) (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ).
To demonstrate prejudice, "a movant...
To continue reading
Request your trial