Brandon Roberts v. State of Missouri
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1063
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Roberts was convicted of stealing by deceit for receiving public benefits while employed; trial evidence showed he received assistance from Oct 2010–Feb 2011 based on a household of two and did not report his employment.
- At application he signed under penalty of perjury and was notified (in person and by letters) to report changes in employment/household within ten days.
- Department records and employer pay stubs showed Roberts worked Oct 1, 2010–end of Feb 2011, rendering him ineligible for those benefits for that period.
- Roberts did not testify at trial; he was convicted and sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to eight years.
- On post-conviction review (Rule 29.15), Roberts alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate three potential defenses: (1) he had reported household size of six (not two); (2) benefits deposited on girlfriend’s EBT card, not his; (3) employment verification form was misfiled in girlfriend’s file.
- After an evidentiary hearing the motion court credited trial counsel, discredited Roberts, concluded counsel conducted reasonable investigation or made strategic choices, and denied relief; this appeal challenges that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate alleged misreported household size | Counsel should have investigated evidence that Roberts reported household of six, which could affect eligibility | Record and trial evidence show household size was two; no evidence supports six; movant not credible | Denied — no showing reasonable investigation would have found contrary evidence or that it would aid defense |
| Whether counsel should have investigated whether benefits were deposited on girlfriend’s EBT card | Counsel should have checked if benefits were actually loaded to girlfriend’s card, not Roberts’s | Discovery and client admissions showed benefits were on Roberts’s EBT; counsel investigated and reasonably declined to pursue use-by-girlfriend issue as it posed risk | Denied — investigation would not have produced favorable evidence; strategic decision reasonable |
| Whether counsel failed to investigate misfiling of employment-verification form | Counsel should have located form allegedly filed in girlfriend’s Department file | Counsel investigated employer files and interviewed HR; investigator attempted contacts; no form found | Denied — counsel conducted reasonable investigation and found no helpful evidence |
| Whether Roberts proved prejudice under Strickland (that better investigation would have changed outcome) | A reasonable investigation would have produced evidence undermining conviction | Movant failed to identify what exculpatory evidence would be found or how it would alter verdict; credibility of movant rejected | Denied — no reasonable probability of different result shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Prince v. State, 390 S.W.3d 225 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (standards for counsel’s duty to investigate and required allegations for failure-to-investigate claims)
- McIntosh v. State, 413 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. banc 2013) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions)
- Williams v. State, 490 S.W.3d 398 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (when known facts reduce need for further investigation)
- Bliss v. State, 367 S.W.3d 190 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (requirement that reasonable investigation would have discovered information that aids defense)