Rios v. State
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 803
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Rios appeals the motion court’s denial of his 29.15 post-conviction motion after an evidentiary hearing.
- He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) on five grounds, asserting trial counsel’s failures prejudiced him.
- Rios was convicted in 2005 of first-degree murder; conviction reversed for hearsay errors; retried in 2008 and convicted of second-degree murder with armed criminal action, sentences to life and 23 years, respectively.
- On direct appeal, convictions were affirmed in 2010.
- Rule 29.15 standard requires showing deficient performance and resulting prejudice under Strickland v. Washington.
- The motion court made credibility determinations and denied relief, which the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| IAC from failing to elicit Restraint taught at Academy | Rios argues Moore/Jones would negate Burke’s teaching of the Restraint | Counsel’s choice not to call them was strategic; testimony would be equivocal | Point I denied; no viable defense shown |
| IAC from not calling Wells re: Kepner statement | Wells would show Kepner’s time frame contradicted trial testimony | Testimony would be cumulative and unreliable | Point II denied; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| IAC from not cross-examining Monticelli about suicide comment | Comment would support innocence by showing mental state | Strategy; would not have altered outcome | Point III denied; no prejudice shown |
| IAC from calling Dr. Stetler (DNA expert) | Stetler’s testimony could have aided defense | Weighed pros/cons; cross-exam undermined potential benefit | Point IV denied; strategic choice not proven ineffective |
| IAC from failure to have Rios testify | Defendant wanted to testify; failure deprived defense | Trial court explained sole defendant’s right to decide; credibility issues resolve | Point V denied; record supports defendant chose not to testify |
Key Cases Cited
- Haskett v. State, 152 S.W.3d 906 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005) (Strickland standard applied to IAC claims in Missouri)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (IAC requires deficient performance and prejudice)
- Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418 (Mo. banc 2002) (Counsel’s strategic decisions generally not reviewable as IAC)
- Roberts v. State, 356 S.W.3d 196 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011) (Findings clearly erroneous when reviewing motion court’s credibility)
- Williams v. State, 205 S.W.3d 300 (Mo.App. W.D. 2006) (Reasonableness of counsel’s actions judged against circumstances)
- Perkey v. State, 68 S.W.3d 547 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001) (Unpersuasive when testimony would not negate element or change outcome)
- Cravens v. State, 50 S.W.3d 290 (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) (IAC requires viable defense probability from evidence failure)
- Forrest v. State, 290 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. banc 2009) (Trial evidence can be cumulative; not basis for IAC)
- Gant v. State, 211 S.W.3d 655 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007) (Cumulative evidentiary impact discussed in IAC context)