Phillip G. Payne v. State of Missouri
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1197
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Phillip G. Payne was convicted by a jury of statutory sodomy and sentenced to 25 years; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- At trial the victim gave numerous inconsistent statements; defense counsel extensively cross-examined and elicited admissions that the victim’s memory was poor and some details were fabricated.
- At the close of the State’s case Payne and counsel jointly decided he would not testify; the trial court confirmed Payne knowingly waived his right to testify and later found counsel’s cross-examination “extraordinarily well done.”
- Payne filed a Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion claiming ineffective assistance for (1) failing to further cross-examine the victim on three additional inconsistencies and (2) advising Payne not to testify.
- After an evidentiary hearing (testimony from trial counsel and Payne), the motion court denied relief for failure to show deficient performance and prejudice; Payne appealed and the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Payne) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel performed deficiently by not further impeaching the victim | Counsel omitted three viable impeachment lines that could have undermined the victim | Cross-examination strategy was reasonable; counsel already conducted extensive impeachment | No deficient performance; strategy decisions are entitled to deference |
| Whether omitted impeachment prejudiced Payne | Additional impeachment would have created reasonable doubt in this close, credibility-driven case | Additional lines would not have changed outcome because jury accepted victim despite extensive impeachment | No prejudice shown; no reasonable probability of different result |
| Whether counsel performed deficiently by advising Payne not to testify | Counsel advised Payne against testifying without adequate consideration of benefits (including using prior convictions favorably) | Advice was reasonable strategy: State’s case weakened by cross, testimony would be cumulative and would expose prior convictions; Payne knowingly waived right | No deficient performance; advice was reasonable trial strategy |
| Whether Payne was prejudiced by not testifying | Jurors could have assessed Payne’s credibility and acquitted if he testified | Speculative; jurors might have disbelieved Payne and revealing priors could worsen outcome | No prejudice shown; mere speculation insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (standard for Rule 29.15 review and burdens on movant)
- Black v. State, 151 S.W.3d 49 (Mo. banc 2004) (counsel’s failure to impeach with statements going to an element can be prejudicial)
- Johnson v. State, 406 S.W.3d 892 (Mo. banc 2013) (prior inconsistent statements that do not raise reasonable doubt are not basis for ineffective-assistance claim)
- Meuir v. State, 182 S.W.3d 788 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (defendant’s knowing, voluntary waiver of right to testify generally precludes IAC challenge absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Payne v. State, 414 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (direct-appeal opinion recounting trial facts relevant to post-conviction claims)