Logan v. State
377 S.W.3d 623
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Logan was charged in Boone County with second-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and armed criminal action for Crumby death.
- He pled guilty to second-degree murder on Oct 7, 2010, with the State dismissing other charges and recommending 24 years; he waived a sentencing assessment report.
- Plea court found Logan understood rights, the range of punishment, and the State’s recommendation, and accepted the plea as voluntary.
- Logan later filed pro se Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance and insufficient evidence; counsel was appointed.
- Counsel filed a Rule 24.035(e) statement instead of an amended motion, indicating all claims were in the pro se motion and advised Logan he could reply within 10 days; no reply was filed.
- Motion court held an evidentiary hearing; testimony involved plea counsel and Logan; the State indicated it would indict Logan for first-degree murder if he did not accept the plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Logan’s abandonment claim is reviewable on appeal | Logan argues post-conviction counsel abandoned him by not filing an amended motion. | State contends abandonment claims are not reviewable on appeal and not preserved here. | Abandonment claim not reviewable on appeal; preserved issues not raised below. |
| Whether Martinez v. Ryan alters the result | Martinez allows counsel’s ineffectiveness to excuse procedural defaults, giving Logan a second chance. | Martinez does not apply to provide a new Rule 24.035 opportunity in this state proceeding. | Martinez does not provide Logan relief in this Rule 24.035 context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valdez v. State, 35 S.W.3d 877 (Mo.App. S.D.2001) (plain-error review not available for unpreserved Rule 24.035 claims)
- Hoskins v. State, 329 S.W.3d 695 (Mo. banc 2010) (plain-error review not available in post-conviction relief appeals)
- Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (abandonment scope not expanded to ineffective-assistance claims in post-conviction context)
- Dean v. State, 314 S.W.3d 402 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (ineffective-assistance review not available in abandonment analysis)
- Yarberry v. State, 372 S.W.3d 568 (Mo.App. S.D.2012) (Martinez limited; not aid in Rule 24.035 matter)
- Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (counsel ineffective in initial-review collateral proceeding may excuse defaults in federal habeas context)
- Hutchison v. State, 150 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2004) (ineffective-assistance claims of post-conviction counsel generally not reviewable on appeal)