Burgess v. State, 342 S.W.3d 325

Burgess entered an Alford plea to discharging a firearm at a building, with a 15-year sentence suspended and five-year probation, under a plea agreement requiring waiver of Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief.
The waiver document advised Burgess that Rule 24.035 relief was the exclusive remedy for specified claims, and he signed acknowledging voluntary, knowing waiver in exchange for the state’s sentence recommendation.
Burgess violated probation; the circuit court revoked probation and executed the 15-year sentence.
Burgess then filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that the waiver was involuntary, with the state moving to dismiss based on the waiver.
The circuit court dismissed the motion without findings; the court of appeals transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court for review under Rule 83.02.
Burgess also sought a change of judge; the circuit court denied the request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of Burgess's change of judge motion was an abuse of discretion.	Burgess argues extrajudicial bias from judge who certified him as adult and accepted the waiver.	State contends no extrajudicial bias shown; no abuse of discretion.	No abuse; denial affirmed.
Whether the post-conviction motion court complied with Rule 24.035's factual/legal findings requirement.	Motion should be examined with proper findings despite presumption against relief.	Waiver forecloses relief; findings not required if conclusively no relief due to waiver.	Remanded for explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Whether Burgess knowingly and voluntarily waived Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief in the plea agreement.	Waiver may be involuntary due to ineffective assistance or coercive influence by counsel.	Waiver was informed and voluntary; supported by plea proceedings and signed waiver.	Remand to determine validity with findings; no final ruling on waiver itself.

Smulls v. State, 10 S.W.3d 497 (Mo. banc 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for change of judge)
Haynes v. State, 937 S.W.2d 199 (Mo. banc 1996) (bias must arise from extrajudicial source; no disqualifying bias here)
Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. banc 2005) (presumption of honesty and integrity of judge; impartiality standard)
Belcher v. State, 299 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. banc 2009) (motion court must issue specific findings; findings cannot be implicit)
Thomas v. State, 808 S.W.2d 364 (Mo. banc 1991) (due-process considerations for disqualification; extrajudicial bias framework)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. Supreme Court 1970) (recognizes Alford guilty plea where defendant maintains innocence)