Gold v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 631
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Movant Nicolian M. Gold was charged by information with three counts of class A felony robbery in the first degree and one count of class C felony tampering in the first degree.
- Gold pled guilty to all charges on May 23, 2007, under a written plea agreement listing the terms for sentences and conditions.
- The plea agreement stated: fifteen years for each robbery, seven years for tampering, sentences concurrent, and the State would oppose probation.
- At sentencing on September 28, 2007, the court imposed the agreed sentences and advised Gold of post-conviction rights.
- Gold filed a motion for post-conviction relief on March 6, 2008, with an amended motion filed July 23, 2009.
- The motion court conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 13, 2010, at which Gold testified; the motion court denied relief on August 24, 2010, and the denial was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for allegedly misleading Gold about a 120-day shock program? | Gold | Lutke strategy not a guarantee | No, not shown; belief was unreasonable and not a guaranteed promise. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. State, 180 S.W.3d 75 (Mo.App. S.D. 2005) (credibility and post-conviction review standards; reliance on attorney guidance must be reasonable)
- Chaney v. State, 223 S.W.3d 200 (Mo.App. S.D. 2007) (ineffective assistance requires prejudice; plea context limits scrutiny)
- Patrick v. State, 160 S.W.3d 452 (Mo.App. S.D. 2005) (prejudice showing in guilty plea context)
- Hao v. State, 67 S.W.3d 661 (Mo.App. E.D. 2002) (parole eligibility guidance; not controlling for sentence promises)
- Reid v. State, 192 S.W.3d 727 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006) (parole-eligibility statements in responses; not dispositive here)
- Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 125 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001) (parole eligibility discussions; distinguishable from guaranteed sentence)