Prince v. State
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 60
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Prince appeals after denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on three theories: failure to investigate mental health/mitigation evidence, failure to request a trial- or penalty-phase change of judge due to the trial court’s familiarity with Prince’s grandfather, and failure to request a no-adverse-inference instruction after Prince chose not to testify.
- The motion court held an evidentiary hearing, admitted testimony from Prince, family, counsel, and other witnesses, and adopted the State’s proposed findings and conclusions, denying the Rule 29.15 motion.
- Prince was convicted on three counts (felony murder, unlawful use of a weapon, armed criminal action) and sentenced to consecutive terms (30, 15, 5 years).
- On direct appeal, this Court affirmed. Prince then filed a post-conviction motion; the motion court denied, and Prince appeals the denial and the change-of-judge ruling.
- The standard of review limits appellate review to whether the motion court’s factual findings are clearly erroneous and whether conclusions of law are correct; change-of-judge denials are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The court ultimately affirmed, denying all ineffective-assistance claims and independent motion-court errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failure to investigate mental health | Prince argues counsel failed to investigate/offer mitigating mental health evidence. | Prince failed to show counsel had reasons to investigate and evidence would have aided/mitigated. | Denied: no deficient performance or prejudice; evidence would not have likely reduced sentence. |
| Failure to seek change of judge at trial due to familiarity | Counsel’s failure to seek change of judge biased by grandfather ties prejudiced Prince. | Strategy; Prince agreed with the decision not to seek change of judge; no prejudice shown. | Denied: trial strategy supported; no demonstrated prejudice. |
| Failure to request no-adverse-inference instruction | Counsel should have requested no-adverse-inference instruction after Prince’s silence. | Instruction is optional; strategy choice to forego was reasonable; no prejudice shown. | Denied: strategic choice; no cognizable prejudice under Strickland. |
| Independent motion-court error: change of judge ruling on post-conviction | Motion court erred in denying change of judge at post-conviction stage. | Judge bias claims arise from extrajudicial sources; no error shown. | Denied: no abuse of discretion; no demonstrated bias in ruling. |
| Adopting State’s proposed findings and conclusions | The court erred by adopting verbatim the State’s findings/conclusions. | Not preserved; even if reviewed, no error shown; State’s proposal can be useful. | Denied: not preserved; no reversible error shown in adoption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (two-pronged standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (no-adverse inference evidence in penalty phase may be excluded to prevent prejudice)
- Vaca v. State, 314 S.W.3d 331 (Mo. banc. 2010) (mitigating mental health evidence judged by counsel’s strategic decisions; not always required)
- Barnett v. State, 103 S.W.3d 765 (Mo. banc. 2003) (no-adverse-inference instruction optional; strategic choice not ineffective)
- Oplinger v. State, 350 S.W.3d 474 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (no-adverse-inference instruction as reasonable trial strategy)