Louis Edward Mallow v. State of Missouri
2014 Mo. LEXIS 204
| Mo. | 2014Background
- Movant Louis Mallow convicted by jury of one count of child molestation; sentenced to 14 years.
- Victim, born 1992, has Turner’s disease affecting learning and speech; victim lived with mother; Movant lived across street with two children.
- Victim testified to several incidents; pretrial interviews contained more alleged instances than trial testimony.
- Jury was given separate molestation verdict directors for two counts; evidence included touching genitals, with varying descriptions.
- Movant’s post-conviction counsel argued verdict directors were vague and could violate unanimity and double jeopardy; motion court denied relief.
- Appeal to Missouri Supreme Court affirmed denial of post-conviction relief; standard of review: abuse of discretion in ruling on Strickland claims; preservation rules applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict directors violated unanimity requirement. | Movant argues Celis-Garcia requires unanimity among acts. | State contends issue not preserved and Celis-Garcia is inapplicable. | Claim not preserved; waived on appeal. |
| Whether verdict directors violated double jeopardy protections. | Movant contends vagueness precludes knowing which conduct was convicted. | State argues no clear error or multiple punishments shown. | No reversible error; no proof of double jeopardy shown. |
| Ineffective assistance of trial/appellate counsel for not challenging verdict directors. | Counsel failed to object to vagueness; prejudice shown. | Counsel’s strategy and lack of merit defense; no prejudice proven. | No reversible error; Strickland claims fail. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Celis-Garcia, 344 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. banc 2011) (unanimity required in multiple-acts cases)
- Johnson v. State, 333 S.W.3d 459 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard for post-conviction review; preservation rules)
- McLaughlin v. State, 378 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. banc 2012) (presumption of correctness; burden on movant)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (performance and prejudice prongs for ineffective assistance)
- State v. LeSieur, 361 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (future-reviewable double-jeopardy questions)
- Williams v. State, 168 S.W.3d 433 (Mo. banc 2005) (appellate counsel standard for ineffectiveness)
- Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. banc 2002) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)