Omoruyi Obasogie v. State of Missouri
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1346
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Around 1:00 a.m. on Nov. 2, 2009, Omoruyi Obasogie (Movant), Anwar Randle, and a third man forcibly entered a home where Cameron Bass and Kena Coleman were asleep; Coleman observed Movant and the third man armed as they entered.
- Movant pointed a handgun at Bass and fired (no one was hit); Bass was later beaten by the intruders and the three fled.
- Police stopped a vehicle with the three; Movant (driving) and Randle were later apprehended; the third man fled.
- Movant was convicted of first‑degree burglary, assault, and two counts of armed criminal action; sentences ran concurrently.
- On post‑conviction review under Rule 29.15, Movant alleged (inter alia) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise insufficiency of the evidence as to Count II (armed criminal action tied to burglary) and ineffective trial counsel for failing to investigate/call Randle; an evidentiary hearing was held but Randle did not appear.
- The motion court denied relief; the court of appeals affirmed, finding the evidence sufficient to support Count II and that counsel’s performance did not entitle Movant to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Movant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising insufficiency of evidence as to Count II (armed criminal action) | Appellate counsel should have argued insufficiency because Movant did not gain entry "by, with, or through" use of a weapon; Coleman’s testimony did not prove use to gain entry | Coleman saw Movant armed while entering the house; display of the gun as he entered supported armed criminal action; the issue was not obviously meritorious | Denied — court held evidence that Movant entered while displaying a gun was sufficient; appellate counsel not ineffective for omitting a nonmeritorious issue |
| 2) Whether the motion court abused discretion or denied due process by refusing to continue the evidentiary hearing to secure Randle’s testimony | Randle’s testimony was necessary to prove trial counsel was ineffective (would have said Movant never entered, possessed a gun, or encountered victims) | Trial counsel credibly testified Movant never provided contact info; Randle had jumped bond and was unavailable; the motion court could find Randle would not have testified or been available | Denied — motion court’s credibility findings supported denial; Randle’s testimony was not shown to be necessary or reasonably obtainable |
| 3) Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/call Randle | Movant asserts counsel did not reasonably investigate or call an exculpatory witness, prejudicing the defense | Trial counsel credibly testified Movant failed to provide contact information and provided a hearsay "affidavit"; court found counsel’s performance reasonable and Movant not credible | Denied — motion court’s findings of counsel credibility and lack of prejudice were not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. 2002) (Missouri application of Strickland; definition of reasonable probability)
- Tisius v. State, 183 S.W.3d 207 (Mo. banc 2006) (standard for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel)
- State v. Carpenter, 109 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. App. 2003) (discussing when armed criminal action attaches to burglary where defendant was first seen inside the house)
- State v. Dudley, 51 S.W.3d 44 (Mo. App. 2001) (similar analysis on armed criminal action and timing of weapon display)