Arak L. McCoy v. State of Missouri
456 S.W.3d 887
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- McCoy pleaded guilty to first-degree statutory sodomy at age 17; ten-year sentence with execution suspended and five years’ probation.
- Plea negotiations amended the charge to involve a victim under 14 to avoid dangerous-felony designation and 85% parole rule; State recommended 10 years suspended, with probation.
- McCoy later moved to withdraw the plea under Rule 29.07(d), claiming plea counsel misadvised about lifetime supervision and GPS monitoring and misled him to admit anal penetration.
- Evidence at the evidentiary hearing showed McCoy admitted the act to counsel and plea; mother testified to concerns about supervision; counsel testified he did not tell McCoy to lie and stated there was substantial evidence against him.
- Circuit court denied relief under Rule 29.07(d); concluded lifetime supervision/GPS were collateral consequences not requiring disclosure and found no reasonable probability of trial if more information had been provided.
- McCoy appealed, and the appellate court held it had jurisdiction to review a post-sentencing Rule 29.07(d) denial and affirmed, noting Padilla-type concerns were not decided and that prejudice analysis supported denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review post-sentencing denial | McCoy (State) contends no final judgment; Larson controls | McCoy argues post-sentencing denial is appealable under Rule 29.07(d) | Appeal allowed; post-sentencing denial is appealable under Rule 29.07(d) |
| Ineffective assistance for not informing about GPS supervision | McCoy alleges counsel’s failure to advise about GPS, lifetime supervision prejudiced him | State argues such consequences are collateral and need not be disclosed | No reasonable probability of trial; prejudice shown not established; affirmed on prejudice ground |
| Padilla expansion to non-immigration consequences | Padilla expands duty to inform about consequences beyond immigration | Padilla does not apply to parole/registration without clear extension | Court declines to decide Padilla expansion here; not necessary to reverse |
| Affirmative misrepresentation about early release | Counsel told McCoy he could petition for early release after two years | Counsel testified this was only a general possibility, not a condition of plea | Circuit court’s rejection of claim affirmed; credibility resolved against McCoy; no reversible error |
| Impact of collateral consequences on voluntariness | Lifetime supervision/GPS could affect voluntariness of plea | Consequences deemed collateral; not required for knowing plea | Not necessary to decide Padilla-based expansion; result affirmed on prejudice and collateral-consequence rationale |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (constitutional duty to inform about immigration consequences extended; prejudice analysis remains under Strickland)
- Reynolds v. State, 994 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. banc 1999) (direct vs collateral consequences of a plea; counsel not required to discuss collateral consequences)
- State v. Rasheed, 340 S.W.3d 280 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (parole eligibility considered collateral; plea validity unaffected by omission)