Hutton v. State
345 S.W.3d 373
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hutton, age 15, fired 15–20 shots at Poole’s car, injuring Poole, a two-year-old, and a bystander; Poole and a bystander identified Hutton at trial.
- Guilty verdicts: two counts of first-degree assault, two counts of armed criminal action, and one count of unlawful use of a weapon.
- Rule 29.15 motion filed pro se in 2004; later treated as a civil post-conviction action; appellate public defender appointed to represent Hutton.
- Direct-appeal conviction affirmed on February 21, 2006; mandate issued April 19, 2006.
- July 18, 2006, private counsel filed a motion to vacate in the underlying criminal case; motion later discussed as part of post-conviction proceedings but record is unclear on proper filing.
- Hutton alleged abandonment by post-conviction counsel and sought a hearing, but the motion court and this court concluded the abandonment issue was not properly before them and the Rule 29.15 motion lacked asserted prejudice to warrant a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abandonment of post-conviction counsel | Hutton claims conflict of interest abandoned him. | State argues abandonment not properly before court and may require reopening. | Issue not properly before us; no ruling on abandonment. |
| Sufficiency of Rule 29.15 allegations to justify a hearing | Motion alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel requiring an evidentiary hearing. | Allegations do not show prejudice; no reasonable probability of different outcome. | Motion court did not err in denying a hearing; prejudice not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210 (Mo. banc 2001) (abandonment could be treated as though no counsel was appointed if conflict proven)
- State v. Brown, 66 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2002) (conflict of interest can lead to abandonment if it causes failure to perform duties)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Sheffield, 272 S.W.3d 277 (Mo. App. S.D.2008) (conflicted counsel; abandonment requires showing failure to perform Rule 29.15 duties)
- Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (abandonment requires explicit failure to perform duties under Rule 29.15)
- Hoskins v. State, 329 S.W.3d 695 (Mo. banc 2010) (plain error review not available in Rule 24.035/29.15 cases)
- Williams v. State, 168 S.W.3d 433 (Mo. banc 2005) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance movants; require pleading of prejudice)
- Nolan v. State, 959 S.W.2d 939 (Mo. App. E.D.1998) (premature Rule 29.15 motions can invoke jurisdiction; not subject to dismissal on timing)
- Edgington v. State, 189 S.W.3d 703 (Mo. App. W.D.2006) (requires factual allegations showing prejudice in Briday-type issues)