Michael S. Federhofer v. State of Missouri
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 584
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Movant Michael Federhofer was charged with resisting arrest, second-degree assault of a law enforcement officer, driving while suspended, and third-degree assault after physical confrontations with police and a security officer; he pled guilty and received concurrent sentences.
- Movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion; counsel was appointed and filed an amended motion challenging plea counsel’s effectiveness.
- Two asserted errors: (1) plea counsel told him he had to plead guilty to all charges if he wanted to plead guilty to any, and (2) counsel failed to inform him about the option of an Alford plea.
- The motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; the court of appeals first confirmed the amended motion was timely filed within the granted 30-day extension.
- The court applied the standard for ineffective assistance post-plea (deficient performance + prejudice requiring that but for counsel’s errors movant would have gone to trial) and the three-part Wharton test for entitlement to an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for allegedly telling Movant he had to plead guilty to all charges to plead to any | Federhofer says counsel told him he had to plead guilty to all pending matters, which induced the plea to assault charge | State argues Movant’s motion allegations are inconsistent and unreasonable; record shows no affirmative misrepresentation and claim on appeal differs from the motion (waived) | Denied — claim waived or refuted by record; no prejudice shown | |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not advising about Alford plea option | Federhofer argues counsel should have offered Alford plea to preserve factual denials for later civil suit; he would have pleaded under Alford instead | State contends omission concerns a collateral consequence (effect on civil suit) and counsel need not predict future civil litigation; no coercion or affirmative misrepresentation | Denied — advice about Alford plea relates to collateral consequences; no ineffective assistance shown | |
| Whether amended Rule 24.035 motion was timely | Movant: amended motion filed within the extension period | State: initial extension request filed late, argues abandonment | Court: extension was granted, amended motion was filed within extension; timeliness satisfied | Timely — proceed to merits |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required under Wharton | Movant: pleaded facts warranting hearing (ineffective assistance) | State: alleged facts are conclusions, refuted by record, and no prejudice shown | No hearing required — movant did not satisfy Wharton’s elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Volner v. State, 253 S.W.3d 590 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (request for extension filed after initial period can be treated as timely if court grants extension and amended motion is filed within it)
- Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. banc 2005) (standard of review for post-conviction motion court findings)
- Wharton v. State, 431 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (three-part test for entitlement to evidentiary hearing on Rule 24.035 motion)
- Stanley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. banc 2014) (to show prejudice after a guilty plea, movant must show he would have insisted on trial but for counsel’s errors)
- Morales v. State, 104 S.W.3d 432 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (ineffective assistance framework for guilty plea cases)
- Johnson v. State, 451 S.W.3d 276 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (direct consequences requirement for plea advisements)
- Doster, Guin, James, Ullom, Benson & Mundorf, LLC v. Haverty, 388 S.W.3d 248 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (fax filing date governs when local rule permits filing by facsimile)