Duncan v. State, 539 S.W.3d 95

Background

Duncan pled guilty to second-degree murder and armed criminal action after acknowledging he shot the victim five times; plea colloquy confirmed he understood sentencing risks and that probation was discretionary.
At sentencing Duncan testified about fearing for his life and described severe renal failure and dialysis; defense submitted medical records but did not call treating physician Dr. Reid.
The State sought a 12-year lid (plus 3 years on Count 2); the court imposed concurrent terms of 12 and 3 years, denied probation, and acknowledged the 85% mandatory portion for the 12-year term.
Duncan filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion and an amended motion alleging (1) plea involuntary due to counsel promises about probation/credit, (2) ineffective assistance for not calling Dr. Reid and failing to properly investigate/present medical evidence, and (3) Eighth Amendment challenge that the 12-year sentence is a de facto death sentence given his medical condition.
The motion court held an evidentiary hearing, credited defense counsel’s testimony that no promises of probation or credit were made and that counsel strategically relied on submitted medical letters rather than live testimony; the court denied relief.
On appeal the court affirmed, concluding the record refuted the involuntary-plea claim, the ineffective-assistance claim failed (both performance and prejudice), and the Eighth Amendment claim lacked merit and supporting evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea was involuntary due to counsel promising probation/credit	Duncan: counsel told him he would get probation on murder count and credit for house arrest, so plea was coerced/misapprehension	State/Court: plea colloquy and counsel testimony show no promises; defendant acknowledged understanding discretionary sentencing	Plea was voluntary; record and credible testimony refute promise-based claim
Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Dr. Reid at sentencing	Duncan: counsel failed to present key medical mitigation; had Dr. Reid testified, sentence would have been lesser (and allegedly would have affected voluntariness)	Counsel: strategic decision—judge already aware of medical condition; letters submitted; calling doctor unnecessary and could backfire	No ineffective assistance: counsel’s strategy was reasonable and Duncan failed to prove prejudice; claim that absence affected plea was not raised below and is waived
Whether 12-year sentence violated Eighth Amendment as a de facto death sentence	Duncan: severe renal failure plus parole timing likely to cause death in custody, making sentence cruel and unusual	State/Court: 12 years is within statutory range, not a death sentence; Duncan offered no evidence that a shorter sentence would secure a transplant or that incarceration caused transplant ineligibility	Eighth Amendment claim denied: sentence lawful and not grossly disproportionate; insufficient evidence to show de facto death sentence

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. State, 529 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. App. 2017) (standard of review for Rule 24.035 findings)
Garris v. State, 389 S.W.3d 648 (Mo. banc 2012) (deference to motion court factual findings)
Dobbins v. State, 187 S.W.3d 865 (Mo. banc 2006) (plea induced by mistake/coercion warrants withdrawal)
Briley v. State, 464 S.W.3d 537 (Mo. App. 2015) (reasonableness test for belief about sentence)
Rivers v. State, 498 S.W.3d 534 (Mo. App. 2016) (no relief where plea record gives no reasonable basis for mistaken belief)
Kennell v. State, 209 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. App. 2006) (same principle re: plea expectations)
Lynn v. State, 417 S.W.3d 789 (Mo. App. 2013) (mere prediction by counsel not enough to render plea involuntary)
Cherco v. State, 309 S.W.3d 819 (Mo. App. 2010) (prejudice at sentencing can support post-conviction relief without vacating conviction)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Mallow v. State, 439 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. banc 2014) (Strickland standard and presumption of reasonable strategy)
Willbanks v. Dep't of Corr., 522 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. banc 2017) (mandatory minimum percent service not inherently unconstitutional)
Denzmore v. State, 436 S.W.3d 635 (Mo. App. 2014) (Eighth Amendment proportionality principles)
Burnett v. State, 311 S.W.3d 810 (Mo. App. 2009) (gross disproportionality is rare)