Roberts v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1328
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Roberts was convicted of second-degree murder and armed criminal action after a jury trial; she waived jury sentencing; trial court imposed consecutive life and 30-year sentences; direct appeal affirmed in 2008; Roberts filed a pro se Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion, later amended; motion court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief; Roberts appeals the denial; mitigation evidence, counsel licensure, and jury-waiver issues are raised.
- Motion court found trial mitigation evidence presented via counselor and letters, and that strategy supported decision to call a family spokesman rather than additional witnesses.
- Roberts contends trial counsel failed to prepare mitigation, counsel was not duly licensed, Rule 9.03 pro hac vice failure prejudiced her, and counsel induced waiver of jury sentencing.
- Court held mitigation strategy reasonable; lack of prosecution error in Rule 9.03 did not violate constitutional right to counsel; no prejudice shown from alleged deficiencies; waiver of jury sentencing was a valid strategic choice; Rule 29.15 motion denied on all counts.
- Roberts was represented at trial by Mark Sachse, a Kansas-licensed attorney, with local Missouri counsel Serrano; Sachse’s pro hac vice admission did not violate constitutional rights; other claimed deficiencies were not shown to prejudice the outcome.
- The Western District affirmed the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief, concluding no clear error in fact-finding or application of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effectiveness of trial counsel for mitigation at sentencing | Roberts: failed to present adequate mitigation | Sachse chose witnesses strategically; many proposed witnesses offered cumulative or impeaching testimony | denied; no prejudice shown; strategy reasonable |
| Constitutional right to counsel given non-M Missouri license of lead counsel | Sachse was not duly licensed in Missouri | Rule 9.03 noncompliance not per se constitutional error; other counsel co-counsel present | denied; no constitutional violation found |
| Ineffectiveness based on Rule 9.03 compliance and overall performance | Sachse defective; numerous complaints show incompetence | No specific deficiencies showing prejudice; arguments abandonable; performance not outlined | denied; no prejudice established |
| Waiver of jury sentencing by Roberts based on counsel advice | Advice to waive jury sentencing prejudiced outcome | Waiver was trial strategy; no showing that jury would have imposed lesser sentence | denied; strategy within wide range of permissible trial tactics |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Murillo, 149 S.W.3d 930 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (right to counsel requires a duly licensed attorney)
- Stott v. State, 771 S.W.2d 843 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989) (noncompliance with Rule 9.03 does not per se violate constitutional rights)
- Neely, 979 S.W.2d 552 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (noncompliance with Rule 9.03 not automatic error; visiting lawyer treated adequately via local counsel)