Lemuel G. Williams v. State of Missouri
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 553
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Nov. 16, 2009, PDQ Title Loans in Gladstone was robbed; store webcam and an owner’s 911 call supplied timestamps and a suspect description.
- Police stopped a gold Pontiac Grand Prix shortly after; Lemuel G. Williams (driver) and Andre Williams (passenger) were arrested; Andre was identified by the victim and had gold teeth while Andre later pleaded guilty.
- Williams claimed he stayed in stores (Walgreens, CD store, Mr. Goodcents) and that Andre acted alone; the timeline the defense provided conflicted with webcam and dispatch timestamps.
- Williams was convicted of first-degree robbery (acting together with or aiding Andre) after a second jury trial and sentenced to 10 years; direct appeal affirmed the conviction.
- Williams filed a timely Rule 29.15 amended post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) failing to investigate/call Andre as a defense witness and (2) failing to object to an allegedly erroneous verdict director (Instruction No. 6).
- The motion court held an evidentiary hearing, found counsel’s failure to object was deficient but found no Strickland prejudice; denied relief. This appeal affirms the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not calling/investigating Andre | Trial counsel should have located and called Andre; his testimony would have exculpated Lemuel and changed the verdict | Counsel interviewed Andre, who was unreliable (high on PCP, fuzzy recollection); reasonable strategy not to call him; no prejudice | Denied — motion court’s credibility findings supported; no deficient-prejudice showing |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to Instruction No. 6 (use of “acted together with or aided”) | Instruction phrasing misstated MAI-CR3d Notes; failure to object deprived Williams of unanimity and prejudiced the verdict | Instruction 5 correctly used “aids or encourages,” prosecutor’s argument focused on aiding; jury questions show they relied on correct language; no prejudice | Denied — performance deficient but no Strickland prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (performance and prejudice two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- McLaughlin v. State, 378 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. banc) (standard of review for Rule 29.15; deference to motion court credibility findings)
- McIntosh v. State, 413 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. banc) (elements to show failure to call witness)
- Barton v. State, 432 S.W.3d 741 (Mo. banc) (trial-strategy presumption when not calling witness)
- Tilley v. State, 202 S.W.3d 726 (Mo. App. S.D.) (failure to object to improper instruction satisfies Strickland performance prong)
- State v. Williams, 409 S.W.3d 460 (Mo. App. W.D.) (direct-appeal opinion addressing instruction and prosecutor argument)
- Rios v. State, 368 S.W.3d 301 (Mo. App. W.D.) (deference to motion court credibility determinations)
- Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. banc) (difference between plain-error review on direct appeal and Strickland prejudice on post-conviction review)
- State v. Young, 369 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. App. E.D.) (jurors treat "aiding" and "acting together with" as functionally equivalent)