360 S.W.3d 304
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hays was convicted by a Lafayette County jury of second-degree burglary, felony stealing, first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, first-degree assault, and armed criminal action arising from two separate incidents against a single victim, Ford.
- A 2003 burglary at Ford's home involved stolen insurance documents and property; DNA placed Hays at the scene.
- In 2004, Ford was attacked during a home invasion by two men; Seevers testified about discussions with Hays and Terry to recover Cordelia's property, with Hays later admitting involvement.
- Terry George contested Cordelia's will, which allegedly favored Ford, creating motive related to the property dispute.
- Kenneth Kleihauer, co-defendant Steve’s alibi witness, did not testify at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing; a transcript from Steve's trial described Kenneth's alibi and credibility issues.
- Hays filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not calling Kenneth as an alibi witness and for not objecting to Seevers's fear testimony; the motion court denied relief, which Hays challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not calling Kenneth alibi | Kenneth would have provided alibi for Steve, undermining the State's theory. | Kenneth's testimony would not negate elements or change outcome; credibility issues limit value. | Denied; no prejudice from absence of alibi witness. |
| Ineffective assistance for not objecting to Seevers's fear testimony | Objection would remove irrelevant propensity/credibility evidence and affect outcome. | Objection would draw attention to testimony; testimony relevant to credibility and admissible. | Denied; objections would not have been meritorious. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. banc 1997) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Ct. 1984) (establishes prejudice and reasonable probability standard)
- Hutchison v. State, 150 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2004) (witness availability and strategic decision not to testify)
- Gennetten v. State, 96 S.W.3d 143 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (counsel performance and prejudice burden in post-conviction)
- West v. State, 244 S.W.3d 198 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (failure to object requires meritorious objection and prejudice)
- Tisius v. State, 183 S.W.3d 207 (Mo. banc 2006) (merits of objections in ineffective assistance claims)
- State v. Kreutzer, 928 S.W.2d 854 (Mo. banc 1996) (trial strategy in witness selection)
- State v. Hitchcock, 329 S.W.3d 741 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (inadmissibility of prior bad acts and evidence rules)