Simmons v. State
432 S.W.3d 306
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In 2007 Simmons was charged with first-degree assault and armed criminal action; in Jan. 2011 he pleaded guilty and received concurrent terms (15 years for assault, 3 years for armed criminal action).
- Simmons was already serving a life sentence without parole from a separate 2009 conviction at the time he pleaded guilty in 2011.
- Simmons filed a pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion; counsel’s amended motion alleged plea counsel failed to inform him he must serve 85% of his sentence before parole eligibility.
- At the evidentiary hearing Simmons testified counsel never told him about the 85% requirement and that he “probably” would have gone to trial if informed.
- The motion court denied relief; Simmons appealed, arguing plea was unknowing/invalid due to counsel’s failure to advise about parole eligibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise Simmons he must serve 85% of his sentence before parole eligibility | Simmons: counsel’s failure to inform him of the 85% parole-served requirement rendered his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary; he "probably" would have gone to trial | State: parole consequences are collateral; counsel has no duty to advise on parole eligibility; existing Missouri precedent bars relief | Court: Affirmed — counsel not ineffective; parole eligibility is a collateral consequence and omission did not void voluntariness; Simmons failed to prove prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (counsel must advise when deportation consequences are clear)
- Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. banc 2011) (misinformation about parole eligibility can warrant an evidentiary hearing)
- Reynolds v. State, 994 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. banc 1999) (parole consequences are collateral; counsel not obligated to advise)
- Smith v. State, 353 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. E.D.2011) (counsel has no duty to advise about 85% parole rule; distinguishes omission from affirmative misinformation)
- Johnson v. State, 398 S.W.3d 513 (Mo. App. S.D.2013) (reaffirming that parole eligibility is collateral and counsel need not advise about 85% rule)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. banc 2009) (standard for proving ineffective assistance in Missouri)
- Cooper v. State, 356 S.W.3d 148 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard of appellate review for Rule 24.035 denials)