Smith v. State
353 S.W.3d 1
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Movant Antoine Smith pleaded guilty to multiple crimes including forcible sodomy, attempted forcible rape, first-degree assault, and first-degree robbery, with various concurrent and consecutive sentence structure totaling 25 years.
- Movant claimed his plea counsel failed to advise him that he would have to serve 85% of certain sentences before parole eligibility.
- Motion court denied an evidentiary hearing, concluding parole eligibility is a collateral consequence and not a misrepresentation in the plea.
- The appellate court reviews a Rule 24.035 decision for clear error and defers to the motion court on credibility; a hearing is only required if prongs are satisfied.
- Missouri law treats parole eligibility as collateral; Padilla v. Kentucky (immigration consequences) created evolving considerations, later examined in Webb v. State.
- The court ultimately held the plea counsel was not ineffective because parole as to the 85% requirement is a collateral consequence, not a direct one that would render the plea involuntary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel's failure to advise 85% parole affects voluntariness | Movant Smith | State | denied; parole collateral, not direct consequence |
| Whether Padilla/Webb expand duty to inform parole consequences for guilty pleas | Movant Smith | State | Padilla/Webb do not compel informing parole as direct consequence; still collateral |
| Whether the motion court clearly erred in denying an evidentiary hearing | Movant Smith | State | no clear error; records support collateral conclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) (expands duty to inform on immigration consequences in plea process)
- Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126 (Mo. banc 2011) (addresses misinforming counsel about parole; distinguishes direct vs collateral consequences)
- Reynolds v. State, 994 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. banc 1999) (parole eligibility treated as collateral consequence; not required disclosure for voluntariness)
- Bryant v. State, 316 S.W.3d 503 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (parole consequences not direct consequences)
- White v. State, 957 S.W.2d 805 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997) (parole generally collateral to voluntariness)
- Rollins v. State, 974 S.W.2d 593 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) (three-prong test for evidentiary hearing under Rule 24.035)
- Morales v. State, 104 S.W.3d 432 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (ineffectiveness framework in guilty-plea contexts)
- Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566 (Mo. banc 2005) (standard for evaluating motion court findings)
- Grace v. State, 313 S.W.3d 230 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (credibility determinations afforded deference)