State v. Hicks, 2013 Mo. LEXIS 12

Kevin Hicks appeals a judgment convicting him of two counts of first-degree robbery, one count of forcible rape, one count of attempted forcible rape, and five counts of forcible sodomy.
Hicks challenges pretrial statements to police as involuntary due to an unfulfilled agreement with the state.
The state concedes Hicks cannot be punished twice for the same robbery incident and vacates the second robbery conviction.
DNA linked Hicks to the 1992 assault; detectives questioned him in 2008 under a written plea-agreement offer tied to concurrent sentence guidance.
The trial court conducted a suppression hearing, ruled the statements voluntary, and later sentenced Hicks with concurrent terms as to some offenses and consecutive terms as required by statute.
Missouri law (section 558.026.1) requires sex offense sentences to run consecutively to non-sex offenses, influencing Hicks’ sentencing framework.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Hicks' statements involuntary due to an unfulfilled plea agreement?	Hicks argues the agreement conditioned leniency on concurrent sentencing that the state could not honor.	State contends there was no promise fixing sentence details beyond concurrent treatment to existing sentences.	Statements voluntary; agreement did not guarantee specific sentence terms.
Does double jeopardy bar two robbery convictions where a single act involved multiple property items?	Hicks contends two robberies for separate property items violate double jeopardy.	State concedes the two convictions for the same continuous act cannot stand.	Second robbery conviction vacated; only one robbery conviction remains for the single incident.

Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (voluntary Miranda waiver requires knowing understanding of rights and consequences)
State v. Brown, 246 S.W.3d 519 (Mo. App. 2008) (standard for evaluating voluntariness of statements)
Samuel v. State, 284 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. App. 2009) (fraud, mistake, or misapprehension can affect voluntariness of pleas)
Hampton v. State, 877 S.W.2d 250 (Mo. App. 1994) (promises or misleadings can render guilty pleas involuntary)
State v. Shafer, 969 S.W.2d 719 (Mo. Banc 1998) (due process considerations for coerced confessions)
Burnett v. State, 311 S.W.3d 810 (Mo. App. 2009) (interpretation of term of imprisonment in plea agreements)
State v. Avery, 275 S.W.3d 231 (Mo. Banc 2009) (meaning of concurrent terms and aggregate imprisonment)
State v. Whitmore, 948 S.W.2d 643 (Mo. App. 1997) (double jeopardy considerations for multiple property items from single act)
White v. State, 694 S.W.2d 825 (Mo. App. 1985) (multiple convictions from single incident analysis)
State v. Bohlen, 284 S.W.3d 714 (Mo. App. 2009) (analysis of sentencing and concurrent/consecutive runs)