452 S.W.3d 257
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Dunlap pleaded guilty in 2010 to multiple offenses arising from three separate incidents (driving while revoked, resisting a lawful stop, DWI, felony murder, and assault).
- Sentencing occurred January 14, 2011, with the court imposing multi-count, consecutive and concurrent terms totaling decades in prison.
- Postconviction Rule 24.035 motion alleged ineffective assistance related to failure to investigate mitigation (brake malfunction, speed calculation, involuntary manslaughter guidelines) and an unlawful blood collection issue.
- Evidence at the evidentiary hearing showed Dunlap may have experienced brake issues and that defense counsel did not pursue brake-related mitigation; blood draw issue was raised by Dunlap but not proved at hearing.
- The motion court denied, relying on a standard focused on plea outcome rather than sentencing outcome, and found no prejudice from counsel’s alleged omissions; Dunlap appealed.
- Rule 78.07(c) preservation issue: Dunlap’s claim about failure to obtain findings on the blood-seizure/suppress issue was not preserved through a motion to amend judgment; the issue was raised only on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion court used the correct prejudice standard for sentencing-based ineffectiveness | Dunlap argues the court applied the plea-prejudice standard instead of sentencing-prejudice | State maintains the court did not err in its analysis | Reversed; remanded to apply proper standard and make factual findings |
| Whether the blood-seizure suppression claim was preserved for review | Dunlap contends Rule 78.07(c) preservation requires addressing the issue in amendment | State argues it was not preserved due to failure to raise in motion to amend judgment | Dismissed for lack of preservation |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice prong requires showing a reasonable probability of a different outcome)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (guides sentencing-ineffectiveness analysis in Missouri postconviction appeals)
- Cherco v. State, 309 S.W.3d 819 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (discusses prejudice in sentencing-related ineffectiveness claims)
- Stirling v. Maxwell, 45 S.W.3d 914 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (reversible error when court applies wrong standard in postconviction review)
- Roberts v. State, 276 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. banc 2009) (standard for reviewing postconviction decisions)