Lynn v. State
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1170
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Movant Darrill Lynn pleaded guilty via an open Alford plea to a class B kidnapping charge arising from the December 2009 removal and confinement of the victim; the court sentenced him to ten years.
- At the plea hearing Movant acknowledged that he maintained innocence but agreed the State’s evidence would likely result in conviction and that the court could impose 5–15 years.
- Movant later filed a Rule 24.035 post‑conviction motion raising six claims: Alford-plea invalidity, ineffective assistance for advising the Alford plea, inadequate pretrial investigation, counsel’s promise of probation, failure to move to suppress statements, and insufficient factual basis for the plea.
- The motion court held an evidentiary hearing, found counsel and the prosecutor credible and Movant not credible, and denied relief; Movant appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed voluntariness and factual-basis requirements for Alford pleas and Strickland standards for ineffective assistance, and affirmed the denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of open Alford plea | Alford forecloses open Alford pleas and the trial court failed to expressly find the plea was an intelligent choice among options | Record shows the court inquired into the conflict and Movant knowingly and voluntarily chose the plea | Trial court satisfied Alford; claim denied (preservation issue as to "inherently forecloses" argument) |
| Sufficiency of factual basis | Prosecutor’s recital was inadequate to show unlawful confinement and terrorizing | Prosecutor’s facts (removal, confinement, showing how to bind hands, victim kept until Harveys arrived) support elements | Sufficient factual basis; Movant understood elements; claim denied |
| Counsel ineffective for advising Alford plea / lack of benefit | Counsel gave no benefit or plea advantage over trial; Movant would not have pleaded otherwise | Plea disposed of potential felony‑murder exposure; prosecutor agreed not to charge felony murder in exchange for plea | Counsel’s advice was reasonable given plea benefit; no prejudice shown; claim denied |
| Counsel ineffective for failing to investigate / promising probation / failing to suppress | Counsel didn’t review discovery or interview key witnesses; promised probation; failed to move to suppress intoxicated/ sleep‑deprived statements | Counsel reviewed discovery, had discussions with prosecutor, did not promise probation (at most predicted a favorable outcome), and Movant’s voluntary plea waived failure‑to‑suppress claim | Motion court credibility findings supported denial on all these claims; no prejudice shown; claims denied |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (Alford plea valid if plea is voluntary and intelligent despite protestation of innocence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard—deficiency and prejudice)
- Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. banc 2005) (guilty plea waives most ineffective‑assistance claims except those affecting plea voluntariness)
- Roberts v. State, 276 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. banc 2009) (guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; inadmissible inducements vitiate voluntariness)
- Chipman v. State, 274 S.W.3d 468 (Mo.App.S.D. 2008) (Rule 24.02(e) factual‑basis requirement supports voluntariness)
- O’Neal v. State, 236 S.W.3d 91 (Mo.App.E.D. 2007) (Alford pleas evaluated like guilty pleas; adequacy of factual basis and acknowledgment of elements)
- Scarborough v. State, 363 S.W.3d 401 (Mo.App.S.D. 2012) (review focuses on whether defendant understood charge and pleaded voluntarily)