Ronald Taylor v. State of Missouri
497 S.W.3d 342
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Ronald Taylor pleaded guilty (Jan 8, 2010) to three counts of second-degree burglary (charges originally filed as first-degree burglary) stemming from July 5, 2009 school break-ins; he received three consecutive seven-year sentences, suspended to probation.
- Probation was revoked and sentences executed (Oct 5, 2012). Taylor filed a Rule 24.035 postconviction motion claiming his pleas were involuntary because the State initially charged first-degree burglary without probable cause and plea counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge those charges.
- The informations charged first-degree burglary (class B), but the text of the informations and affidavits of probable cause recited only facts supporting second-degree burglary (class C) and did not allege that Taylor was armed, threatened or that any non-participant was present.
- Taylor alleged his counsel waived preliminary hearings, failed to investigate or advise him about the lack of factual basis for first-degree charges, and that he pleaded only to avoid exposure to higher penalties.
- The motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning the plea colloquy (where Taylor did not indicate coercion or dissatisfaction with counsel) refuted his claims; Taylor appealed.
- The Court of Appeals found the amended motion was timely (facsimile stamp) and reversed the denial, remanding for an evidentiary hearing because Taylor’s factual allegations were neither conclusory nor conclusively refuted by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Taylor's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of amended Rule 24.035 motion | Amended motion filed within extended time (timely by fax) | Amended motion filed one day late; remand for abandonment inquiry | Motion was timely (fax stamp); no abandonment inquiry required |
| Were pleas involuntary because State threatened prosecution on first-degree charges lacking probable cause? | Taylor: initial filing/threat of first-degree charges (no probable cause) coerced plea | State: plea bargaining and threat of greater charges permissible if supported by probable cause | Allegations that first-degree charges lacked factual support, and induced the plea, were sufficient and not conclusively refuted — requires hearing |
| Ineffective assistance of plea counsel for failing to investigate/challenge first-degree charges | Counsel failed to investigate advise or challenge lack of factual basis before recommending plea; prejudice followed | Record (plea colloquy) shows Taylor was advised and did not complain; claims refuted | Plea colloquy did not conclusively refute the claim; factual allegations warrant an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether record conclusively refutes motion so no evidentiary hearing required | N/A (Taylor seeks hearing) | Motion court: plea colloquy answers refute coercion and dissatisfaction | Court: plea colloquy was too general to conclusively refute Taylor’s specific factual allegations; remand for hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (1978) (prosecutor may threaten harsher charges during plea bargaining only if based on probable cause)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (plea must be knowing and voluntary; Strickland standard applied to plea advice)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (effective assistance of counsel required in plea negotiations)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (defense counsel must communicate plea offers and provide competent plea advice)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (effective assistance in the plea context can affect voluntariness and prejudice analysis)
- Roberts v. State, 276 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. banc 2009) (standards for entitlement to evidentiary hearing on Rule 24.035 motion)
- State v. Sapien, 337 S.W.3d 72 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (prosecutor may threaten additional charges in plea negotiations if probable cause exists)