504 S.W.3d 888
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- In Nov. 2013 Coon was arrested for burglary and possession of meth; he signed a Miranda form, gave a written confession, and four others implicated him.
- Coon was on probation from a March 2013 conviction with a suspended five‑year sentence; probation was later revoked.
- Pursuant to a plea agreement (Mar. 3, 2014), Coon pled guilty to possession and stealing (both Class C felonies); State dropped two related charges.
- Court sentenced Coon to seven years on each new count (to run concurrently) and revoked his prior suspended sentence, imposing seven years to run consecutively to the new sentences (total exposure explained as 14 years); execution initially suspended and Coon placed on probation, later revoked.
- Coon filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion (post‑conviction) alleging ineffective assistance: (1) counsel failed to move to suppress his confession (he claims intoxication/sleep deprivation) and (2) counsel failed to advise that sentences would run consecutively. The motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; Coon appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Coon) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress Coon's confession | Coon says his confession was involuntary because he was high on methamphetamines and sleep‑deprived, so counsel should have sought suppression | Record shows Coon signed Miranda waiver and statement; mere intoxication (absent mania) goes to credibility, not admissibility; plea was knowingly made and waived Fourth Amendment challenges | Denied — claim facially meritless; counsel not ineffective for failing to file a meritless motion and Coon waived suppression claims by pleading guilty |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that the prior suspended sentence would run consecutively to new sentences | Coon contends he was not told that revocation would result in consecutive sentencing producing 14 years | Transcript shows prosecutor's recommendation and the court twice explained and confirmed Coon understood that the prior seven‑year sentence would run consecutive to the new seven‑year concurrent sentences | Denied — record refutes Coon; he was informed and acknowledged understanding |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 370 S.W.3d 883 (Mo. banc 2012) (Strickland standard for post‑conviction ineffective assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lynn v. State, 417 S.W.3d 789 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (a voluntary, knowing guilty plea waives claims based on failure to move to suppress)
- State v. Hindman, 543 S.W.2d 278 (Mo. App. S.D. 1976) (intoxication short of mania affects credibility, not admissibility of confession)
- State v. Hunter, 840 S.W.2d 850 (Mo. banc 1992) (counsel not ineffective for failing to file meritless motions)
- Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. banc 2005) (guilty plea waives other errors except those affecting voluntariness/knowing nature of plea)