Booker v. State, 552 S.W.3d 522

Booker was indicted for first-degree assault (acting with four codefendants) alleging a substantial step toward attempting to kill or causing serious physical injury and that the victim suffered traumatic brain injury.
At a single plea hearing addressing two cases, Booker pled guilty in this case after the prosecutor recited facts: Booker struck the victim on the ground, others then kicked the victim in the head, and the victim suffered severe, permanent injuries; Booker fled the scene.
During the colloquy Booker acknowledged he had discussed the case and consequences with counsel, understood acting "with" others, and affirmed his plea was voluntary and because he was guilty; the court accepted the plea and later sentenced him to 13 years.
Booker filed a Rule 24.035 motion alleging (1) his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the record lacked a factual basis/failed to show awareness of required elements, and (2) plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of a sudden passion/adequate cause defense.
The motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed whether the record conclusively refuted Booker’s claims and affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Booker's guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (sufficient factual basis vs. voluntariness)	Booker: Record didn’t show he understood elements or whether he was charged as principal vs. accomplice; thus plea may be unknowing	State/record: Prosecutor’s factual recitation and Booker’s admissions show he acted "with" others, admitted purpose and conduct, and acknowledged consequences	Court: Record conclusively refutes claim; plea was knowing and voluntary; distinction between factual-basis requirement and voluntariness clarified
Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise of sudden passion/adequate cause defense	Booker: Counsel failed to advise of viable sudden passion defense; but for that he would have gone to trial	State/record: Plea admissions undercut Booker’s portrayed provocation; Booker failed to allege facts showing counsel’s deficient performance or prejudice	Court: Motion court did not clearly err; record refutes ineffective-assistance claim and no evidentiary hearing required

Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (plea must be voluntary and intelligent)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (factual-basis and voluntariness discussion for guilty pleas)
United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (courts may look to the record as a whole to determine voluntariness)
Wilson v. State, 813 S.W.2d 833 (Mo. banc 1991) (review of plea voluntariness from the whole record)
Barnum v. State, 14 S.W.3d 587 (Mo. banc 2000) (persons acting in concert are equally guilty)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in guilty-plea context)
DePriest v. State, 510 S.W.3d 331 (Mo. banc 2017) (Missouri standard applying Strickland)
McNeal v. State, 412 S.W.3d 886 (Mo. banc 2013) (requirements for entitlement to an evidentiary hearing under Rule 24.035)