Bott v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1548
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bott was charged with arson in the second degree and entered an Alford plea in 1997, with the court suspending sentence and placing him on five years of supervised probation with restitution obligations.
- Probation was subsequently violated by Bott, leading to a probation revocation hearing and a five-year DOC sentence in 2001.
- Bott filed a pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion in 2002, amended in 2002, alleging an insufficient factual basis for the plea, improper probation revocation, and ineffective assistance of plea counsel.
- An evidentiary hearing occurred in 2009; Bott testified that plea counsel advised him there would be no record, which affected his decision to plead, and he later faced travel restrictions and employment difficulties.
- The motion court denied relief in 2010 after reviewing the transcript and record, and Bott appealed challenging the sufficiency of the factual basis, appellate authority to revoke probation, ineffective assistance of counsel, and adequacy of findings.
- The Southern District affirmed, holding the factual-basis sufficiency did not render the plea unknowing, and that the probation-revocation issue was within statutory authority; counsel claims failed on the record, and findings were sufficient for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a sufficient factual basis to make Bott's plea knowing and voluntary? | Bott contends insufficient factual basis rendered plea involuntary. | State argues record showed sufficient facts and Bott admitted to evidence establishing guilt. | No error; factual basis sufficient, plea voluntary. |
| Did the plea court have statutory authority to revoke Bott's probation? | Bott argues probation was suspended, not terminated, so revocation was improper. | State contends § 559.036 authorizes revocation before expiration/termination of probation. | Plea court had statutory authority to revoke during probation term. |
| Did plea counsel's alleged misadvice render the plea involuntary/unknowing? | Bott alleges counsel advised no problems or record, affecting voluntariness. | State asserts plea transcript shows adequate advisement; misstatement not shown to affect voluntariness. | No; transcript demonstrates advisement and voluntariness. |
| Are the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient for meaningful review on ineffective assistance? | Bott argues insufficient findings hinder appellate review of counsel ineffectiveness. | State contends findings address the issue and refute Bott's claims. | Yes; findings are sufficient for meaningful review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chipman v. State, 274 S.W.3d 468 (Mo.App. S.D. 2008) (factual-basis requirement and knowingness of guilty plea)
- O'Neal v. State, 236 S.W.3d 91 (Mo.App. E.D. 2007) (Alford plea validity and knowledge despite refusal to admit guilt)
- Rivera v. State, 106 S.W.3d 635 (Mo.App. S.D. 2003) (ineffective assistance standard in Rule 24.035 context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
- Andrews v. State, 282 S.W.3d 372 (Mo.App.S.D. 2009) (probation-violation challenges in Rule 24.035 context)
- Nunley v. State, 923 S.W.2d 911 (Mo. banc 1996) (standard of review for post-conviction findings)
- Hurst v. State, 301 S.W.3d 112 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (credibility determinations at post-conviction evidentiary hearings)
- Moore v. State, 207 S.W.3d 725 (Mo.App. S.D. 2006) (prejudice requirement in negotiated-plea ineffective-assistance claims)