Kenneth E. Figgens, Sr. v. State of Missouri
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 673
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2008, two armed men posing as law enforcement entered Theresa Cox's apartment, held occupants at gunpoint, and stole property; Figgins was identified by multiple victims as one of the robbers.
- Figgins was charged in Jackson County with burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, four counts of kidnapping, one count of assault in the third degree, and six counts of armed criminal action; the jury found him guilty on ten counts but acquitted on several (including kidnapping Kenney-related counts and the assault on Cox).
- Jurors polled during deliberations; Juror 7 initially said guilty verdicts were true but then stated reasonable doubt; the court declared a mistrial as to the remaining counts.
- The State pursued double jeopardy/collateral estoppel arguments; after mistrial, Figgins entered an Alford plea to first-degree robbery, with the remaining counts dismissed and a recommended sentence of no more than 20 years; he received 15 years.
- On January 2011, Figgins filed a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion alleging (1) double jeopardy violation on the robbery conviction, (2) ineffective assistance for not raising double jeopardy objections at plea, and (3) ineffective assistance for not raising such objections at sentencing; the motion court denied; on appeal, the issues relate to collateral estoppel and sufficiency of counsel’s objections.
- Appellate review is for clear error of the motion court’s findings; the court ultimately affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does collateral estoppel bar the robbery conviction? | Figgins argues acquittals on Kenney/assault counts preclude prosecution. | State argues collateral estoppel may not apply because the prior acquittals did not unambiguously resolve the robbery issue. | Collateral estoppel does not bar the plea prosecution. |
| Was plea counsel ineffective for not raising double jeopardy at plea? | Figgins contends counsel should have objected to double jeopardy based on collateral estoppel. | State asserts no error because the prior acquittals did not unambiguously preclude the robbery plea. | No ineffective assistance; objection would have been meritless. |
| Was sentencing counsel ineffective for not raising double jeopardy at sentencing? | Figgins argues counsel should have objected at sentencing on double jeopardy grounds. | State contends no error since collateral estoppel did not apply and objection would be meritless. | No ineffective assistance; objection would have been meritless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970) (collateral estoppel applies to prevent relitigation of an ultimate fact)
- State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 752 (Mo. banc 1997) (collateral estoppel applies where the issue is the same as in the pending case)
- Cusumano, 399 S.W.3d 909 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (burden to show prior acquittal bars present prosecution; must show the verdict resolved the issue in dispute)
- Dowell, 311 S.W.3d 832 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (collateral estoppel applied when the issue in prior and current cases is the same)
- Mullins v. State, 262 S.W.3d 682 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (ineffective-assistance claim contingent on merit of double jeopardy argument)
- Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (U.S. 2009) (hung counts; cannot rely on negative implications to resolve preclusion)
- State v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 656 (Mo. banc 2010) (a jury may accept part of testimony and disbelieve other parts; prevents unambiguous preclusion)