Johnson v. State
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 165
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Johnson pleaded guilty to first-degree assault under a plea agreement for a 12-year sentence; other charges dismissed.
- Mandatory minimum parole eligibility required 85% service before release for dangerous-felony convictions under § 558.019.3.
- Motion under Rule 24.035 asserted plea counsel failed to inform about 85% parole rule, causing involuntariness.
- Motion court denied without evidentiary hearing, finding no obligation to advise on parole eligibility.
- This Court applies de novo review with clear-error standard to motion court rulings under Rule 24.035(k).
- Missouri precedent treats parole eligibility as a collateral consequence, not affecting voluntariness of the plea, but Padilla is distinguished
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel's non-disclosure of parole eligibility renders the plea involuntary | Johnson argues Padilla warrants expansion beyond direct consequences | State relies on Reynolds/Smith that parole is collateral and not required to be advised | No error; parole eligibility is collateral and not mandated to be advised |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 994 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. banc 1999) (parole eligibility is collateral; not required to be advised)
- Smith v. State, 353 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App.2011) (parole eligibility remains collateral; Padilla not extended here)
- Rowland v. State, 129 S.W.3d 507 (Mo.App.2004) (parole consequences are collateral)
- Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. banc 2011) (discusses collateral vs direct consequences; Padilla context limited)
- Cooper v. State, 356 S.W.3d 148 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard for evaluating evidentiary hearing on Rule 24.035)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (clear duty to inform on particularly clear immigration consequence)