Greer v. State
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 948
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Movant Tracy Greer was convicted of multiple offenses including first-degree assault, armed criminal action, endangering a corrections employee, and possession of a weapon in a correctional facility, and was sentenced as a prior/persistent offender to 25 years.
- On direct appeal, the appellate court remanded for sentence corrections on six counts but affirmed the judgment otherwise.
- Greer filed a timely Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion; counsel was appointed and an amended motion was filed alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The motion court denied the 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing, issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Movant argues two claims of ineffective assistance: (1) failure to object to a closing argument remark describing him as 'Taliban-looking'; (2) failure to object to sentencing court’s consideration of his decision to proceed to trial.
- Standard of review governs whether the motion court’s findings are clearly erroneous and whether an evidentiary hearing is required under Rule 29.15, including the Strickland prejudice standard for ineffective assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Closing argument prejudice | Greer argues trial counsel failed to object to 'Taliban-looking' remark, prejudicing trial. | Greer contends objection would have been sustained and prejudiced the jury. | No prejudice; no reversible error; failure to object was not ineffective. |
| Sentencing and right-to-trial retaliation | Greer argues sentencing court considered exercising the right to trial, violating rights and warranting relief. | State contends other factors supported sentencing and the right-to-trial was not determinative. | Remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the court determinatively relied on right-to-trial in sentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Banks, 215 S.W.3d 118 (Mo. banc 2007) (prosecutor’s remark as ‘Devil’ prejudicial; contradiction with evidence)
- State v. McFadden, 369 S.W.3d 727 (Mo. banc 2012) (contextual review of closing argument; deference to trial judge)
- State v. Wright, 998 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (determinative-factor standard in sentencing retaliation analysis)
- State v. Collins, 290 S.W.3d 736 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (balanced assessment of factors; not solely based on trial decision)
- Taylor v. State, 392 S.W.3d 477 (Mo.App. W.D.2012) (exercise of right to trial if determinative factor warrants reversal)
- Thurston v. State, 791 S.W.2d 893 (Mo.App. E.D.1990) (sentencing practices cannot punish for exercising rights; due process concern)
- State v. Vaughn, 940 S.W.2d 26 (Mo.App. S.D.1997) (clarifies sentencing factors and right-to-trial considerations)