Noland v. State
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1353
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Noland was charged with forcible rape of a 10-year-old, an offense carrying a mandatory life sentence (no probation or parole).
- Defense counsel mistakenly advised Noland the punishment range included a 10-year offer and suggested parole/probation was an option.
- Prosecutor relayed a 10-year plea offer; on the morning of trial the court questioned Noland, who repeatedly and adamantly maintained his innocence and refused the plea.
- Noland proceeded to trial, was convicted and sentenced to life, and lost direct appeal.
- Noland filed a PCR petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for misadvising him about punishment and that but for counsel’s advice he would have accepted a 10-year plea.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the PCR court found counsel gave incorrect punishment advice but rejected Noland’s claim that he would have accepted the plea and also found it unlikely the court would have accepted a 10-year deal; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Noland's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s misadvice about punishment rendered plea involuntary under Strickland/Lafler | Counsel misinformed him about sentence range; but for that he would have pled to 10 years | Noland remained adamant about innocence and rejected pleas at trial; no reasonable probability he would have accepted plea | Court: Counsel erred on punishment, but Noland failed to show reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea (no prejudice) |
| Whether the trial court would have accepted a 10-year plea | Noland: trial court likely would have accepted negotiated 10-year term | State: trial judge previously rejected plea in this case and would likely have rejected a 10-year child-molestation plea | Court: PCR judge (also trial judge) found acceptance highly unlikely; Noland failed to prove reasonable probability of acceptance |
| Credibility of Noland’s post-conviction testimony that he would have pled | Noland testified he would have pled if properly advised | State pointed to Noland’s courtroom statements and conduct refusing offers pre-trial | Court: Deferred to trial court’s credibility findings and found Noland’s PCR testimony not credible |
| Whether any Strickland deficiency entitles Noland to relief | Noland: deficiency caused Lafler prejudice (would have pled, plea would have been accepted) | State: no Strickland prejudice because both acceptance by defendant and court acceptance not proven | Court: No Strickland/Lafler prejudice shown; PCR relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (two-part test for plea-related ineffective assistance: probability defendant would have accepted offer and court would have accepted it)
- Frye v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (companion decision addressing counsel’s role in plea negotiations)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (benchmark test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (application of Strickland to guilty pleas)
- Mayes v. State, 349 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. App. 2011) (appellate deference to trial court findings)
- Joos v. State, 277 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. App. 2009) (deference when PCR judge was trial judge)