Pittman v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 185
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Pittman pled guilty to a class B delivery-of-controlled-substance felony and was sentenced as a persistent drug offender within the class A range (15 years).
- Pittman filed a Rule 24.035 motion; counsel amended it; the motion court denied after an evidentiary hearing; Pittman appeals.
- Plea counsel testified he reviewed a video of Pittman’s sale and separately interviewed two officers and a confidential informant; video was of poor quality.
- Plea counsel viewed the video on a laptop and then on a large screen; he believed the larger, louder view made the video more inculpatory, influencing Pittman’s decision to plead guilty.
- Witnesses against Pittman were identified by observation and not by the video content; the guilty plea transcript shows Pittman understood and voluntarily pleaded.
- The sentencing judgment erroneously reflects a class A conviction; the State concedes a clerical error, and the court historically amended via nunc pro tunc to reflect a class B conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness of plea counsel re video view | Pittman | Pittman | No reversible error; no prejudice shown. |
| Effectiveness re sentencing evidence of prescription-drug addiction | Pittman | Pittman | No ineffective assistance; no proven strategy failure. |
| Clerical error in judgment class designation | Pittman | State | Judgment amended nunc pro tunc to reflect class B. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roll, 942 S.W.2d 370 (Mo. banc 1997) (standard for voluntariness and knowledge of guilty pleas)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (ineffective assistance standard for guilty plea claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Green v. State, 777 S.W.2d 295 (Mo. App. S.D. 1989) (plea advice strong but not involuntary; voluntary plea evidence standards)
- Choate v. State, 762 S.W.2d 87 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988) (voluntariness of plea and counsel's advice considerations)
- Simmons v. State, 955 S.W.2d 729 (Mo. banc 1997) (ineffective assistance following guilty plea; prejudice standard)
- Krider v. State, 44 S.W.3d 850 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (preponderance standard and standard for motion review)