Conger v. State
356 S.W.3d 217
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Movant Jason Conger appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.
- Movant alleges plea counsel had a financial conflict of interest coercing him to plead guilty to avoid trial costs.
- Movant also alleges plea counsel failed to investigate a defense based on involuntary intoxication.
- Movant pled guilty to multiple charges on May 28, 2009, and was sentenced to a total of 15 years.
- The motion court denied the Rule 24.035 motion, and the appeal challenges that denial on both conflicts of interest and investigative adequacy.
- The court reverses and remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine if counsel coerced the plea due to payment pressure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did a financial conflict coerce the plea? | Conger | State | Remanded for evidentiary hearing on coercion due to conflict |
| Was plea counsel ineffective for not investigating involuntary intoxication? | Conger | State | Denied on the record; claim insufficient to warrant hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 171 S.W.3d 154 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (divergence of interests from inability to pay may affect counsel's performance)
- Lomax v. State, 163 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (actual conflict of interest required to show prejudice)
- Jaegers v. State, 310 S.W.3d 313 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (routine plea inquiries cannot conclusively refute coercion allegations)
- Price v. State, 171 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (plea hearing responses too general to refute coercion claim)
- Simmons v. State, 100 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (investigation quality limits on voluntariness/understanding of plea)
- Hill v. State, 301 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (reasonable investigation standard for ineffective assistance)
- Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. Banc. 2011) (three-part test for entitlement to evidentiary hearing)