386 S.W.3d 179
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Movant Kareem Martin was charged in April 2008 with first-degree robbery, first-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action as a prior and persistent offender.
- Dec 30, 2006, Movant and an accomplice elicited Bynum into his home, brandished guns, threatened to kill him, and demanded money in a metal box; Bynum handed over $600 which was discarded.
- Movant and accomplice took Bynum to the basement, shot at him while he attempted to escape, and Movant struck him in the face, causing a broken nose; Bynum was subsequently shot multiple times before being taken to a hospital for surgery.
- Bynum survived with ongoing injuries, including a hand bullet remaining in his right hand, reduced hand use, broken ribs, and punctured lungs; these injuries impaired his hand function and overall health.
- A jury convicted Movant of the charged offenses and the trial court imposed four concurrent terms of 15 years’ imprisonment; this court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
- Movant filed a pro se post-conviction motion in March 2010; an amended motion followed in 2011 alleging ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel, and post-conviction counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the sufficiency of evidence for first-degree assault | Martin argues insufficient evidence proved serious physical injury. | State contends the record shows serious physical injury and protracted impairment. | No error; sufficiency supported; appellate counsel not ineffective. |
| whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a lesser-included instruction on second-degree assault | Martin asserts evidence could support acquittal of greater offense. | State argues evidence showed intentional conduct to cause serious injury; no basis for lesser instruction. | No error; instruction not required given the evidence presented. |
| whether post-conviction counsel's performance entitles Movant to relief under Martinez | Martinez requires reversal/remand due to ineffective post-conviction counsel failing to raise claims. | Rule 29.15 and Missouri law do not provide a right to post-conviction counsel or to expand claims; no cause shown. | Denied; Martinez does not apply to Missouri post-conviction framework; no new grounds preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grace v. State, 313 S.W.3d 230 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (hearing requires specific nonconclusory facts showing prejudice)
- Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. banc 2005) (prejudice required for ineffectiveness claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
- Williams v. State, 168 S.W.3d 438 (Mo. banc 2005) (requires showing a reasonable probability of different outcome)
- State v. Pond, 131 S.W.3d 792 (Mo. banc 2004) (lesser-included offense only if basis for acquittal exists)
- State v. Pettit, 976 S.W.2d 585 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (intent may be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
- State v. Manley, 223 S.W.3d 887 (Mo.App. W.D.2007) (circumstantial evidence of intent acceptable)
- Logan v. State, 377 S.W.3d 623 (Mo.App. W.D.2012) (preservation and procedural requirements for post-conviction claims)
- Martinez v. Ryan, Martin v. Ryan (2012) (federal decision on post-conviction counsel; does not alter Missouri law)
- Yarberry v. State, 372 S.W.3d 568 (Mo.App. S.D.2012) (recognizes limits on post-conviction counsel claims)