Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 06 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | ED 109755 |
| Citation | 655 S.W.3d 810 |
| Parties | Keith WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Kevin L. Schriener, Law & Schriener, LLC, 141 N. Meramec Ave, Suite 314, Clayton, MO 63105, for appellant.
Garrick F. Aplin, Attorney General's Office, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, for respondent.
Keith Wright appeals the judgment denying his amended Rule 29.151 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. In his sole point relied on, Wright claims trial counsel was ineffective for "convincing him to testify in his defense -- despite his express desire not to testify," resulting in a self-defense instruction and the admission of prior statements inconsistent with his trial testimony that he did not shoot and kill two people. We hold that the motion court did not clearly err in denying relief on this claim without an evidentiary hearing.2 The judgment is affirmed.
Following a jury trial, the trial court convicted Wright of two counts of murder in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action for shooting and killing Ricos Boyd and Shayla Carter ("Victims"). The court sentenced Wright to consecutive life sentences without the possibility of probation or parole on each of the murder convictions and to concurrent terms of thirty years’ imprisonment on each of the armed criminal action convictions. This Court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. State v. Wright , 551 S.W.3d 608 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018).
Wright timely filed an amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief alleging several claims. In pertinent part, Wright alleged he "expressly did not wish to testify" but "[t]rial counsel convinced [him to] testify, without a full and complete discussion of the consequences of doing so." Wright asserted his testimony resulted in the submission of a self-defense instruction and the admission of his videotaped statements to police in which he claimed self-defense.3 Because Wright testified at trial that he did not shoot the Victims, Wright alleged "[t]he effect of the jury instruction was to highlight the inconsistencies in the defense, weakening [his] defense." Finally, Wright alleged "had trial counsel not coerced [him] into testifying, [he] would have gone with his first impulse to not testify, which would have lead [sic ] to a reasonable probability of a different result."
On June 15, 2021, the motion court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law denying Wright's motion for post-conviction relief. Wright appeals.4
Rule 29.15(k) limits appellate review of a judgment denying postconviction relief to determining whether the circuit court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. McLemore v. State , 635 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Mo. banc 2021). A judgment denying postconviction relief is "clearly erroneous when, upon review of the complete record, there is a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made." Hefley v. State , 626 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Mo. banc 2021) (internal quotation omitted). A judgment denying post-conviction relief may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record. Swallow v. State , 398 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 2013).
"To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her trial counsel failed to meet the Strickland test to prove his or her claims." Anderson v. State , 564 S.W.3d 592, 600 (Mo. banc 2018) (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ). "To state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant must allege facts demonstrating: (1) that counsel's performance did not conform to the degree of skill, care, and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that counsel's deficient performance actually prejudiced the movant." McLemore , 635 S.W.3d at 559 (internal quotation omitted). "Trial counsel's advice to his client about whether or not to testify is a matter of trial strategy which, barring exceptional circumstances, is not a ground for post-conviction relief." Slater v. State , 147 S.W.3d 97, 101 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004). "[A] movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing only if: (1) the movant pleaded facts, not conclusions, warranting relief; (2) the facts alleged are not refuted by the record; and (3) the matters complained of resulted in prejudice to the movant." McLemore , 635 S.W.3d at 559 (internal quotation and brackets omitted). If "the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief, a hearing shall not be held." Rule 29.15(h).
The record shows trial counsel did not convince Wright to testify against his will. During a pre-trial conference, the trial court questioned Wright regarding his right to testify:
Likewise, during trial, on the eve of his testimony, Wright again confirmed his decision to testify was voluntary:
Wright alleged no specific or exceptional facts showing trial counsel "convinced" him to testify against his will. Wright, in his own words, repeatedly confirmed he would be voluntarily exercising his right to testify. Wright also specifically denied he was forced, threatened, or intimidated into testifying.
Wright's allegation trial counsel convinced him to testify "without a full and complete discussion of the consequences of doing so" also falls short. To overcome the presumption trial counsel's representation was effective, "a movant must identify specific acts or omissions of counsel that, in light of all the circumstances, fell outside the wide range of professional competent assistance." Watson v. State , 520 S.W.3d 423, 435 (Mo. banc 2017) (internal quotation omitted); see also Strickland , 466 U.S. at 690, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huckleberry v. State
...of the case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief, a hearing shall not be held." Rule 29.15(h); Wright v. State, 655 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Mo. App. 2022). --------- ...