Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the motion court’s judgment denying Appellant postconviction relief, holding that the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous.On appeal from the motion court’s denial of postconviction relief from his conviction and death sentence for first-degree murder, Appellant claimed that the motion court committed multiple errors. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment denying postconviction relief, holding (1) the judge did not err in limiting juror questioning; (2) the postconviction process was not tainted by a ruling on the juror issue by a judge who later refused; (3) defense counsel were not ineffective in failing to call additional lay and expert witnesses in the guilt and penalty phase; and (4) Appellant was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims of error. View "McFadden v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the motion court dismissing Appellant’s Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing and remanded the case with instructions to the motion court to make an independent inquiry to determine whether Appellant was abandoned by his appointed counsel.Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of failing to register as a sex offender. Appellant later filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief. After post-conviction relief counsel was appointed, Appellant sought to file an amended motion for post-conviction relief. Counsel did not file an amended motion for post-conviction relief until after the Rule 24.035(g) deadline. The motion court did not adjudicate Appellant’s amended motion and entered a judgment dismissing Appellant’s pro se post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the motion court failed to make an independent inquiry into whether Appellant was abandoned by his appointed counsel. Because that determination should be reviewed and there was no record available for review of the motion court’s determination, this case must be remanded. View "Milner v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court overruling Defendant’s motions to suppress evidence and sentencing Defendant to eight years’ imprisonment in connection with his conviction for possession of a controlled substance.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motions to suppress methamphetamine because Defendant was not unlawfully seized when an officer requested that Defendant produce his driver’s license to verify whether he was driving on a suspended license and Defendant complied with that request; and (2) even though the range of punishment was misstated at the sentencing hearing, Defendant failed to establish that the circuit court imposed sentence based on a mistaken belief. View "State v. Perry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court overruling Defendant’s motions to suppress evidence and sentencing Defendant to eight years’ imprisonment in connection with his conviction for possession of a controlled substance.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motions to suppress methamphetamine because Defendant was not unlawfully seized when an officer requested that Defendant produce his driver’s license to verify whether he was driving on a suspended license and Defendant complied with that request; and (2) even though the range of punishment was misstated at the sentencing hearing, Defendant failed to establish that the circuit court imposed sentence based on a mistaken belief. View "State v. Perry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of possession of child pornography and sentencing him to fifteen years’ imprisonment.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the circuit court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence because the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his consent to the search of his home was voluntary or that exigent circumstances existed warranting officers’ warrantless entry into his home; and (2) he was sentenced based on the circuit court’s “materially false understanding of the possible range of punishment.” The Supreme Court held (1) assuming, without deciding, that Defendant’s consent to the search was not freely and voluntarily given, application of the exclusionary rule was not appropriate because the officers had no knowledge that the search was unconstitutional; and (2) the record did not support a conclusion that the circuit court imposed sentence based on a mistaken belief. View "State v. Pierce" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of one count of possession of child pornography and sentencing him to fifteen years’ imprisonment.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the circuit court erred in overruling his motion to suppress evidence because the State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his consent to the search of his home was voluntary or that exigent circumstances existed warranting officers’ warrantless entry into his home; and (2) he was sentenced based on the circuit court’s “materially false understanding of the possible range of punishment.” The Supreme Court held (1) assuming, without deciding, that Defendant’s consent to the search was not freely and voluntarily given, application of the exclusionary rule was not appropriate because the officers had no knowledge that the search was unconstitutional; and (2) the record did not support a conclusion that the circuit court imposed sentence based on a mistaken belief. View "State v. Pierce" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the motion court overruling, without a hearing, Defendant’s Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035 motion for postconviction relief from his conviction for assault in the first degree and thirteen-year sentence.In denying Defendant’s motion, the motion court found (1) the record conclusively refuted Defendant’s claims that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and (2) the record refuted Defendant’s claim that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Defendant of the defense of acting under sudden passion arising out of adequate cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record conclusively refused Defendant’s claims that his plea was not knowing and voluntary and that his plea counsel was ineffective. View "Booker v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the motion court overruling, without a hearing, Defendant’s Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035 motion for postconviction relief from his conviction for assault in the first degree and thirteen-year sentence.In denying Defendant’s motion, the motion court found (1) the record conclusively refuted Defendant’s claims that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and (2) the record refuted Defendant’s claim that plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Defendant of the defense of acting under sudden passion arising out of adequate cause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the record conclusively refused Defendant’s claims that his plea was not knowing and voluntary and that his plea counsel was ineffective. View "Booker v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the motion court’s judgment overruling Appellant’s Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the record conclusively refuted the claims made in the motion.Appellant pled guilty to second-degree drug trafficking and was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. After Appellant violated the conditions of his release, the court revoked Appellant’s probation. Appellant filed a rule 24.035 motion challenging his drug manufacturing conviction and asserting that his plea counsel was ineffective for inducing an involuntary guilt plea. The motion court overruled the motion on the ground that the record conclusively refuted Appellant’s claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, when looking at the totality of the circumstances, the record conclusively refuted the claims in the amended motion. View "Ryan v. State" on Justia Law

Article I, section 18(c), which voters added to the Missouri Constitution in 2014, does not violate due process.Defendant was convicted of three counts of first-degree statutory sodomy. On appeal, Defendant challenged the constitutionality of article I, section 18(c), arguing that it violates due process because it allows admission of evidence of prior criminal acts in the prosecution’s case-in-chief to prove a defendant has the propensity to commit the charged crime. The Supreme Court held (1) article I, section 18(c) does not violate federal due process on its face; (2) the circuit court is not required to make an express finding of legal relevance before admitting evidence under article I, section 18(c), provided the record reflects a sound basis for the balancing the amendment requires; and (3) the circuit court did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant’s prior criminal act because the danger of unfair prejudice from that evidence did not substantially outweigh its probative value. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law