Simmons v. State
429 S.W.3d 464
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Movant an inmate at the DOC Eastern Reception Diagnostic Correction Center; a prison-made stabbing weapon was found in a trashcan and a cigarette lighter was found on Movant during a cell search on August 14, 2009.
- Movant was charged on August 2, 2010 with the Class B felony of delivering or concealing a prohibited article at a correctional facility, under Section 217.360.1(4).
- Plea agreement led to a guilty plea on February 18, 2011 to the Class B felony of delivering or concealing prohibited articles on the premises, in violation of Section 217.360.1(4).
- Movant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment.
- On July 11, 2011 Movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief; an amended motion followed; he argued the plea court had no factual basis for the plea.
- The motion court denied the Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding a factual basis existed and Movant understood the charges; Movant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea to 217.360.1(4)? | Movant argues no factual basis for the Class B felony. | State contends the record establishes a factual basis under 217.360.1(4) and Movant understood the charges. | Denied; motion court findings not clearly erroneous; factual basis exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Taylor, 929 S.W.2d 209 (Mo. 1996) (factual basis may be established by the record as a whole)
- Saffold v. State, 982 S.W.2d 749 (Mo.App.W.D.1998) (plea court must determine factual basis; voluntariness of plea)
- State v. Shafer, 969 S.W.2d 719 (Mo. Banc.1998) (plea evidence adequacy; voluntariness and understanding)
- Wagoner v. State, 240 S.W.3d 159 (Mo.App.S.D.2007) (focus on defendant’s understanding, not ritualistic details)
- State v. William, 100 S.W.3d 828 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) (cell phone example; not inherently within the statute’s broad reach)
- State v. McCabe, 345 S.W.3d 311 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (object need not be inherently dangerous; jurors determine dangerousness)
- State v. Whiteley, 184 S.W.3d 620 (Mo.App.S.D.2006) (lesser-included offense analysis; relationship between 3 and 4)
- Becker v. State, 260 S.W.3d 905 (Mo.App.E.D.2008) (lesser-included offense framework)
- Orr v. State, 179 S.W.3d 328 (Mo.App.S.D.2005) (Rule 24.02 purpose; protection of due process)
- DeClue v. State, 3 S.W.3d 395 (Mo.App.E.D.1999) (understanding of charges required; not every element explained)
- Vann v. State, 959 S.W.2d 131 (Mo.App.S.D.1998) (plea adequacy; focus on understanding and record)
- Davis, 226 S.W.3d 927 (Mo.App.W.D.2007) (direct-appeal sufficiency standard vs. Rule 24.035 standard)