Roberts v. State, 535 S.W.3d 789

Background

Roberts was convicted by a jury (Feb. 2013) of multiple counts arising from two sexual assaults; he did not testify at trial. The jury recommended lengthy prison terms; the court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 110 years.
Before voir dire the bailiff cleared the courtroom to make room for a 60-person venire; several of Roberts’ family members were asked to leave. No contemporaneous objection was made at trial and Roberts did not raise the closure on direct appeal.
Roberts filed a pro se Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion, later amended, alleging: (1) deprivation of the public-trial right by courtroom closure during voir dire; (2) ineffective assistance for advising him about testifying; (3) ineffective assistance for failing to cross-examine victims regarding the size of his penis; and (4) ineffective assistance for failing to present mitigating evidence or argue for lesser sentences at penalty phase.
The motion court denied all claims (with an evidentiary hearing only on the public-trial claim). Testimony at the hearing conflicted about who ordered the removal and whether anyone sought to remain in the courtroom; trial counsel said Roberts did not want to testify and that questioning on penis size lacked evidentiary support and risked offending the jury.
On appeal the court applied Missouri Rule 29.15 standards, Strickland ineffective-assistance framework, and Weaver v. Massachusetts reasoning; it affirmed the denial, finding the public-trial claim not cognizable on post-conviction review and the ineffective-assistance claims either unsupported by facts or reasonable trial strategy without demonstrated prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Roberts' Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Right to public trial (courtroom closure during voir dire)	Closure deprived Roberts of due process and public-trial right; warrants new trial	Claim is not cognizable in Rule 29.15 because it should have been raised on direct appeal; no exceptional circumstances	Denied — claim not cognizable; even if considered, Roberts failed to show prejudice under Weaver standard
2. Counsel advised him not to testify	Counsel prevented or inadequately advised Roberts from testifying; he wanted to give exculpatory testimony	Record and counsel testimony show Roberts was adamant he did not want to testify; allegation is conclusory	Denied — allegations are conclusory and refuted by the record
3. Failure to cross-examine victims about penis size	Cross-examination about penis size would have undermined victims’ credibility; counsel’s failure prejudiced the defense	Counsel had no evidence to support the claim, believed the line would be offensive and unhelpful; strategic decision	Denied — counsel’s choice was reasonable trial strategy; no prejudice shown
4. Failure to present mitigating witnesses/arguments at sentencing	Counsel failed to call family or other witnesses who would "humanize" Roberts and argue for lesser sentences	Allegations are vague; movant failed to identify witnesses, their expected testimony, or reasonable probability of a lesser sentence	Denied — failure to allege facts showing deficient performance or prejudice; calling witnesses was reasonable strategy or insufficiently supported

Key Cases Cited

Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (2017) (explains burden and prejudice requirement when a structural public-trial error is raised in an ineffective-assistance claim rather than preserved for direct review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (discusses structural errors and harmless-error differences)
McIntosh v. State, 413 S.W.3d 320 (Mo. banc 2013) (Rule 29.15 is not a substitute for direct appeal; trial error considered only in rare/exceptional circumstances)
Barnett v. State, 103 S.W.3d 765 (Mo. banc 2003) (standards for entitlement to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction motion)