378 S.W.3d 376
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Gray appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- Gray contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a Fourth Amendment issue challenging the gun search/seizure.
- Gray argues counsel’s failure to raise the issue on appeal prejudiced him and the result would likely have differed if preserved.
- Officers detained Gray on April 16, 2008, for safety after he touched his waistband; a loaded gun was found and suppressive challenge was denied at trial.
- Evidence at trial included the gun, magazine, and ammunition; cross-examination raised drug-related issues that allegedly opened the door to related testimony for the accomplice.
- On direct appeal, conviction and four-year sentence were affirmed; Gray then filed a post-conviction motion which the court denied on point I and did not address point II; this appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment suppression error preserved for appeal | Gray | State | Point I denied; no ineffective assistance evident. |
| Need for findings on second point | Gray | State | Remanded for Rule 29.15(j) findings on door-opening argument. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1986) (merits of Fourth Amendment claims depend on trial counsel efficacy in challenging searches)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (test for ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice required)
- Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. banc 2006) (strong presumption of reasonable conduct; prejudice required)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (Rule 29.15 standard; non-meritorious objections ineffective)
- Crews v. State, 7 S.W.3d 563 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (five exceptions to need for findings; outlines reviewability)