Ford v. State
334 S.W.3d 679
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Movant Troy Ford was indicted for first-degree murder and armed criminal action in 2006.
- During trial in 2007, the State amended charges and Ford pleaded Alford to second-degree murder and armed criminal action under a plea agreement.
- Ford testified understanding the plea and waiving certain rights, with the State outlining a factual basis for both charges.
- Sentencing in January 2008 imposed life for second-degree murder and 20 years for armed action, run concurrently; no complaint about counsel at that time.
- Ford filed a pro se Rule 24.035 postconviction motion in July 2008; counsel was appointed and an amended motion followed in 2009 alleging ineffective assistance.
- Evidence at a 2010 evidentiary hearing showed counsel’s sentencing strategy focused on youth and lack of prior convictions; movant claimed additional childhood witnesses could have reduced sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s sentencing tactics were ineffective | Ford asserts counsel failed to present mitigating witnesses. | State contends counsel's strategy was reasonable and within professional norms. | Point denied; strategy deemed reasonable. |
| Whether movant was denied voluntariness of plea due to lack of mitigating evidence | Ford claims he would not have pleaded if aware of mitigating evidence possible at sentencing. | State argues waiver of jury sentencing and plea discussions undermine this assertion. | Point denied; record shows waiver and plea was voluntary. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 205 S.W.3d 300 (Mo. App. 2006) (prejudice required for ineffective assistance in sentencing)
- Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. Banc. 2005) (ineffective assistance standard; presumption of effectiveness)
- Stuart v. State, 263 S.W.3d 755 (Mo. App. 2008) (standard of review for Rule 24.035 claims)
- Nguyen v. State, 184 S.W.3d 149 (Mo. App. 2006) (Alford plea treated as guilty plea for postconviction review)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice showing in guilty-plea cases)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishing deficient performance and prejudice standard)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. Banc. 2009) (requires specific acts outside the wide range of competent assistance)
- State v. Lawrence, 250 S.W.3d 763 (Mo. App. 2008) (voluntariness and knowledge in plea considerations)
- Christeson v. State, 131 S.W.3d 796 (Mo. Banc. 2004) (trial strategy considerations in ineffective assistance analysis)