Martin v. State, 538 S.W.3d 340

Robert C. Martin (Movant) was convicted by a jury of second-degree burglary and two counts of stealing; sentenced to ten concurrent years; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
Movant filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial vindictiveness; the motion court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.
Ineffective-assistance claim: trial counsel failed to object to several prosecutor statements during voir dire that Movant argued improperly argued facts and predisposed jurors to guilt.
Vindictiveness claim: Movant alleged the prosecutor filed an amended information adding prior-and-persistent offender allegations after Movant rejected a 5-year plea offer, as retaliation for exercising his right to trial.
The motion court found no prejudice from counsel’s non‑objections and that Movant failed to prove prosecutorial vindictiveness; Movant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to prosecutor voir dire comments	Martin: objections were required because prosecutor argued facts and predisposed jury, creating reasonable probability of a different outcome	State: comments were either permissible voir dire or, even if objectionable, no reasonable probability the outcome would differ	Court affirmed denial: Movant failed to show prejudice; claim denied
Whether filing an amended information adding prior-and-persistent offender allegations was prosecutorial vindictiveness	Martin: prosecutor threatened increased exposure after he refused plea, deterring exercise of right to trial and affecting sentencing	State: claim not cognizable in Rule 29.15 because the alleged vindictiveness was known at trial and should have been raised on direct appeal	Court affirmed denial: claim not cognizable in post-conviction proceeding

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. banc 1997) (deference to trial strategy; harmlessness analysis for voir dire errors)
McIntosh v. State, 413 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. banc 2013) (Rule 29.15 does not substitute for direct appeal; trial errors apparent at trial generally not cognizable)
State v. Six, 805 S.W.2d 159 (Mo. banc 1991) (voir dire limits on advocacy and permissible questioning)
Foster v. State, 748 S.W.2d 903 (Mo. App. 1988) (permissible scope of voir dire distinguishing argument from inquiry)
McLaughlin v. State, 378 S.W.3d 328 (Mo. banc 2012) (presumption that motion court findings are correct)
Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (standard for reviewing findings as clearly erroneous)
Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856 (Mo. banc 1987) (Strickland prong analysis can omit one prong if the other fails)
Chrisman v. State, 297 S.W.3d 145 (Mo. App. 2009) (addition of prior-and-persistent allegation does not automatically create presumption of vindictiveness)
State v. Miller, 981 S.W.2d 623 (Mo. App. 1998) (prosecutor may legitimately reserve prior/offender charging as part of bargaining)