Scarborough v. State
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 333
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Scarborough was charged with possession of cocaine under §195.202; information alleged he possessed cocaine knowing its presence and nature.
- At plea, Scarborough entered an Alford plea after being explained its meaning; he stated understanding, discussed with counsel, and signed a petition.
- The State gave a factual recital at plea showing cocaine in a duplex, Scarborough’s residence, and his admission of residence; there was an implied acknowledgment of possession.
- The court accepted the Alford plea, sentenced him to 15 years with suspended execution, and placed him on 4 years’ probation, though the Prior Drug Offender box was unchecked.
- Scarborough violated probation; the court revoked and reduced the sentence to 10 years; he later filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, amended by counsel.
- The motion court denied relief; Scarborough appealed contending lack of adequate factual basis/Rule 24.02(b) advisement rendered the plea unknowing; issue is whether he understood the charge and pled voluntarily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a sufficient factual basis and understanding for the Alford plea? | Scarborough argues lack of factual basis renders plea unknowing. | State contends record shows understanding and voluntariness despite missing explicit knowledge element. | No reversible error; record shows Scarborough understood the charge and pleaded knowingly. |
| Did the plea court adequately advise on Rule 24.02(b) and basis for the plea? | Scarborough asserts inadequate advisement and factual basis affected voluntariness. | State asserts record supports understanding despite recital gaps. | Not clearly erroneous; the record supports understanding of the charge and voluntary plea. |
| Did the motion court properly deny post-conviction relief based on the record? | Scarborough argues denial was error due to insufficient basis for the plea. | State argues decision was correct given the whole record shows understanding. | Affirmed; denial of Rule 24.035 relief affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gooch v. State, 353 S.W.3d 662 (Mo.App. S.D.2011) (examination of factual basis for Alford pleas; understanding elements)
- Wallace v. State, 308 S.W.3d 283 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (record must show elements; factual basis on record as a whole)
- O'Neal v. State, 236 S.W.3d 91 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (Alford plea may be voluntary despite no explicit admission of guilt)
- Geren v. State, 473 S.W.2d 704 (Mo. banc 1971) (voluntary guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional infirmities if understanding exists)
- Chipman v. State, 274 S.W.3d 468 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (purpose of Rule 24.02(e) to ensure intelligent/voluntary plea)
- State v. Nunley, 923 S.W.2d 911 (Mo. banc 1996) (standard of review for post-conviction findings)