John Childers v. State of Missouri
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 582
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Childers was convicted in 2010 of a 1988 forcible rape after DNA from a cold-case rape kit matched him; he claimed the sex was consensual.
- After conviction and before sentencing, the court received a letter from another rape victim alleging Childers had raped her in 1988 and urging maximum sentence.
- Childers was sentenced to 25 years consecutive to other sentences; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Childers filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion; appointed counsel filed an amended motion 90 days after appointment (untimely under Rule 29.15(g)).
- The motion court held an evidentiary hearing, made written findings addressing both the pro se and amended claims, and denied relief; Childers appealed alleging ineffective assistance for failing to move to strike the letter.
- The court first reviewed timeliness/abandonment principles but found no remand necessary because the motion court had adjudicated all claims with written findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Childers) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of amended Rule 29.15 motion / need for remand for abandonment inquiry | Amended motion should be considered on the merits (implicit) | Amended motion was untimely; remand unnecessary because motion court adjudicated all claims with written findings | Amended motion was untimely, but remand unnecessary because the motion court held a hearing and entered written findings on all pro se and amended claims |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to move to strike victim-letter | Trial counsel was deficient for not objecting to the unsolicited letter and Childers was prejudiced by its admission | Counsel’s conduct was reasonable (no indication judge relied on the letter); no prejudice shown because sentence reflects jury verdict and criminal history, not the letter | Denied — motion court’s finding that counsel was not ineffective and that Childers suffered no prejudice was not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. banc 2006) (sets out Missouri standard for ineffective assistance analysis incorporating Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (prejudice requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- McIntosh v. State, 413 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. banc 2013) (presumption of correctness for motion-court factual findings)
- Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856 (Mo. banc 1987) (if movant fails one Strickland prong, court need not address the other)