Andre Adams v. State of Missouri, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 66

Andre Adams (Movant) was convicted by a jury of four counts of first-degree statutory sodomy (child under 12) and two misdemeanor counts of furnishing pornographic material to a minor; sentenced to concurrent 30-year terms for sodomy and 1-year terms for misdemeanors (total 30 years). The convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
Movant filed a timely pro se Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion; counsel later filed an amended motion. The motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. This appeal challenges that denial.
Movant asserted three ineffective-assistance claims: (1) trial counsel failed to object to jury not viewing the alleged pornographic video when convicting on the misdemeanors (alleged jury misconduct); (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the same misdemeanor-related issue on direct appeal; (3) trial counsel failed to object to prosecutorial comments during direct examination of the victim.
The motion court treated the amended motion as timely and addressed the merits; the State had raised an abandonment/timeliness threshold but the court proceeded without remand.
The motion court denied relief, concluding Rule 29.15 provides post-conviction relief only for felony convictions (so misdemeanor claims are not cognizable), and that trial counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s comments did not establish prejudice because similar testimony about the victim’s normal demeanor was elicited from another witness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting or moving for new trial based on alleged jury misconduct (jury did not view alleged pornographic video)	Adams: counsel should have contested convictions for furnishing pornographic material because jury never viewed the video, indicating misconduct or improper verdicts on the misdemeanors	State: Rule 29.15 covers only felony convictions; misdemeanor claims are not cognizable in a Rule 29.15 motion	Denied — not cognizable under Rule 29.15; motion court correctly refused relief
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the jury-not-viewing-video issue on direct appeal	Adams: appellate counsel should have raised the misdemeanor-video issue on appeal	State: same Rule 29.15 limitation; ineffective-appellate-counsel claim tied to a non-cognizable misdemeanor claim	Denied — claim not cognizable under Rule 29.15
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s comments on the victim’s demeanor during direct examination	Adams: prosecutor’s statement (“I don’t see the smile I normally see”) was improper and counsel should have objected, creating prejudice	State: prosecutor may comment on witness demeanor; similar testimony about the victim’s usual demeanor was introduced via another witness, so any error caused no prejudice	Denied — counsel’s failure to object was within trial judgment and defendant failed to show prejudice

Newton v. State, 359 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. App. W.D.) (Rule 29.15 relief unavailable for misdemeanors)
Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc) (same principle: Rule 29.15 limited to felonies)
Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc) (motion court may deem late filing timely when delay is counsel’s fault)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Wright v. State, 216 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. App. S.D.) (prosecutor may comment on witness demeanor)
Link v. State, 965 S.W.2d 906 (Mo. App. S.D.) (failure to object to prosecutor’s remarks does not automatically warrant relief)
Helmig v. State, 42 S.W.3d 658 (Mo. App. E.D.) (deference to counsel’s judgment on trial objections)