Smith v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1229
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Eugene Smith pled guilty to a class-C felony possession of heroin with prior and persistent offender and prior drug offender designations.
- At the plea, Smith denied the 1979 felony possession charge but admitted other priors after the prosecutor sought to amend the information accordingly.
- The court granted leave to amend the information to include the convictions Smith admitted, changing the sentencing range to a B felony.
- Two days after the plea, the prosecutor filed an amended information reflecting Smith’s admissions; Smith did not object.
- Smith later filed a Rule 24.035 motion seeking post-conviction relief; the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal, Smith challenged the sentencing as improper and argued he was prejudiced by the post-plea amendment and the State’s failure to plead the prior convictions earlier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing as a prior/persistent offender was proper given post-plea amendments | Smith argues amendments after sentencing violated 558.021.2 | State contends admission at plea plus later amendment sufficed and did not prejudice Smith | Amendment and admission supported persistent offender finding; no reversible prejudice |
| Whether the motion court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing | Smith claims record errors created need for an evidentiary hearing | State asserts the record refutes Smith's allegations and supports denial | Motion court did not clearly err in denying without a hearing |
| Whether Smith preserved the prior drug-offender issue for review | Smith argues plain error review should apply | Hoskins v. State bars plain error review for unpreserved claims under Rule 24.035 | Claim not preserved; plain error review precluded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roll, 942 S.W.2d 370 (Mo. banc 1997) (standard for reviewing Rule 24.035 findings)
- State v. Gibbs, 306 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. E.D.2010) (admission of prior felonies can establish all facts for prior offense without proving every element)
- State v. Franklin, 547 S.W.2d 849 (Mo. App. E.D.1977) (admission of convictions can prevent prejudice from variances between information and charges)
- State v. Martin, 882 S.W.2d 768 (Mo. App. E.D.1994) (vacate/resentence when proof relied on different convictions than charged)
- State v. Teer, 275 S.W.3d 258 (Mo. banc 2009) (prior offender findings and information requirements)
- Hoskins v. State, 329 S.W.3d 695 (Mo. banc 2010) (plain-error review not permitted for unpreserved Rule 24.035 claims)