580 S.W.3d 895
Mo.2019Background
- Ronald Johnson pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action; sentenced to life without parole under a plea that avoided the death penalty.
- The State had strong evidence including an audio recording; before trial the State offered to forego the death penalty in exchange for guilty pleas.
- Johnson later filed a Rule 24.035 postconviction motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntary plea, alleging (a) counsel coerced him by threatening death penalty exposure though he was allegedly intellectually disabled, (b) he was incompetent to plead because of low IQ, and (c) counsel failed to challenge the State’s competency evaluation or obtain an independent exam.
- At the evidentiary hearing, Johnson presented IQ and expert evidence suggesting intellectual disability; plea counsel testified he advised only of potential exposure to death, believed Johnson was slow but competent, and did not coerce him.
- The motion court credited plea counsel and denied relief; the Supreme Court of Missouri (en banc) affirmed, finding counsel’s performance within reason, Johnson competent to plead, and no clear error in refusing relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel coerced plea by threatening death penalty | Johnson: counsel told him he would face death at trial, inducing plea | State: counsel warned of possibility of death penalty — accurate and not coercive | Held: No coercion; court credited counsel and plea deemed voluntary |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for advising death-penalty exposure despite alleged intellectual disability | Johnson: counsel should have recognized/investigated intellectual disability making him ineligible for death | State: no adjudication of intellectual disability; counsel had duty to advise of possible punishments including death | Held: Counsel properly informed Johnson of possible death penalty; not ineffective on this ground |
| Competency to plead (ability to understand and assist) | Johnson: low IQ (e.g., IQ 63) and expert testimony showed inability to meaningfully assist; thus incompetent | State: Department psychologist (Dr. Armour) found Johnson competent; plea counsel observed him competent | Held: Sufficient evidence supported motion court’s finding Johnson was competent to plead |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not seeking second competency/intellectual-disability evaluation | Johnson: counsel should have challenged Dr. Armour and obtained independent testing | State: reliance on state competency exam was reasonable; second exam would produce conflicting experts and is not automatic basis for ineffectiveness | Held: Counsel not ineffective for declining further evaluation; no clear error in denial of relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. State, 356 S.W.3d 148 (Mo. banc 2011) (ineffective assistance in guilty-plea context relates to voluntariness/knowledge of plea)
- Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. banc 2011) (Strickland standard summarized for Missouri)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard for counsel error in plea context)
- Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (U.S. 2002) (execution of intellectually disabled offenders violates Eighth Amendment)
- Rice v. State, 585 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. banc 1979) (attorney duty to inform client of possible range of punishment)
- Goodwin v. State, 191 S.W.3d 20 (Mo. banc 2006) (counsel not ineffective for failing to seek second competency exam solely because first found competence)