560 S.W.3d 44
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Goodwater was indicted (2010) for 19 counts possession of child pornography (class B) and 1 count for a single photograph (class C); trial held May 2012; jury convicted on all counts.
- At trial Goodwater admitted the media were his but claimed he did not know the files contained child pornography; he testified he was a "multimedia hoarder" who did bulk downloads.
- During rebuttal closing the State attacked Goodwater's credibility by saying he had "twenty-six months to come up with something;" trial counsel did not object.
- At sentencing Goodwater waived jury sentencing; the court expressed extreme disgust at the images and stated that possession "promotes" child pornography; no objections were made; total sentence = 25 years (State had sought 37; SAR recommended 5–8/15).
- Goodwater filed a Rule 29.15 motion alleging multiple ineffective-assistance claims (failure to object/appeal: retaliatory sentencing for going to trial; treating possession as automatic promotion; failure to raise double jeopardy/unit-of-prosecution issues; failure to object to closing argument). Motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
- This appeal challenges the motion-court denial on seven points; the appellate court affirms, finding counsel not ineffective and that objections raised would not have been meritorious or prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Goodwater) | Defendant's Argument (State / Motion Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising retaliatory sentencing on direct appeal | Appellate counsel should have argued trial court punished Goodwater for exercising right to a jury trial | Record shows sentencing based on grotesque nature of images and re-victimization; no manifest injustice; appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to raise unpreserved claim | Denied — no ineffective assistance; sentence not shown to be retaliatory |
| 2. Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to alleged retaliatory sentencing | Trial counsel should have objected at sentencing to prevent enhancement for going to trial | Even if counsel lacked a strategy, record shows sentence was based on other valid reasons (disturbing images); no prejudice from failure to object | Denied — no prejudice; counsel not ineffective |
| 3. Appellate counsel ineffective for not challenging trial court's statement equating possession with promotion | Court’s statement treats possession as automatic aggravator violating individualized sentencing/separation of powers | Statement was a response to mitigation argument, not an automatic legal enhancement; claim novel and not obvious; no manifest injustice | Denied — claim not obvious or meritorious |
| 4. Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to court equating possession with promotion | Counsel should have objected to prevent legal conflation and enhanced sentence | No record that court actually treated the offenses as the same or automatically enhanced; objection would not have succeeded | Denied — no prejudice; counsel not ineffective |
| 5. Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising double jeopardy/unit-of-prosecution on direct appeal | Goodwater argues unit of prosecution was per transaction (two downloads), not per item, so 20 counts violate double jeopardy | Liberty and statute language reflect units (e.g., "more than twenty still images" and single motion picture) supporting separate-item prosecution; claim would not be meritorious | Denied — appellate counsel not ineffective; no manifest injustice |
| 6. Trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to multiple counts at sentencing (double jeopardy) | Trial counsel should have moved to dismiss or objected to multiple counts at sentencing | Statute and Liberty support separate punishments per item; objection would not have succeeded; no prejudice | Denied — counsel not ineffective |
| 7. Motion court applied incorrect standard to counsel’s failure to object to State’s closing (comment on post-arrest silence) | Motion court did not examine whether counsel’s non-objection was reasonable; State’s rebuttal impermissibly commented on silence | State rebuttal concerned credibility conflict between Detective Ryun’s testimony and Goodwater’s trial testimony, not post-arrest silence; motion court applied correct standard and counsel’s strategy was reasonable | Denied — no merit; objection would not have been well taken |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 406 S.W.3d 892 (Mo. banc 2013) (standard for reviewing motion-court factual findings and Strickland review)
- Liberty, 370 S.W.3d 537 (Mo. banc 2012) (statutory unit-of-prosecution analysis for child-pornography statute)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (defining ineffective-assistance standards)
- Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. banc 2006) (deference to strategic choices after thorough investigation)
- Henningfeld v. State, 451 S.W.3d 343 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (appellate counsel not ineffective for failing to raise unpreserved claims absent manifest injustice)
- Greer v. State, 406 S.W.3d 100 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (sentencing may not punish defendant for exercising right to trial; need to show determinative factor)
- Tisius v. State, 183 S.W.3d 207 (Mo. banc 2006) (appellate ineffectiveness requires obviousness of omitted claim)
- Glover v. State, 225 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. banc 2007) (no relief for failure to raise non-meritorious issues)
- Tokar v. State, 918 S.W.2d 753 (Mo. banc 1996) (trial strategy: excessive objections during closing may backfire)
- Barton v. State, 432 S.W.3d 741 (Mo. banc 2014) (limits on objecting to certain closing-argument content)