408 S.W.3d 90
Mo.2013Background
- Hicks was convicted of two counts of first-degree robbery, one forcible rape, one attempted forcible rape, and five forcible sodomy counts; on appeal, he challenges voluntariness of pretrial statements and double jeopardy for two robbery counts.
- DNA evidence in 2008 tied Kevin Hicks to the 1992 six-person home invasion; five co-perpetrators identified, Hicks located in prison awaiting release in 2018.
- Detectives advised Hicks of Miranda rights; Hicks signed waivers and provided information without reciprocal leniency promises before a formal offer.
- A written plea agreement promised concurrent sentences to Hicks’ current prison terms if his information led to filing charges against others; no fixed sentence dates were guaranteed.
- The trial court admitted Hicks’ statements, ruling they were voluntary and that the agreement did not guarantee a concurrent sentence for all new counts.
- The court vacated Hicks’ second count of first-degree robbery, holding the double jeopardy issue conceded by the State; judgment affirmed in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of pretrial statements | Hicks relied on an unenforceable bargain affecting his sentencing. | The agreement could not be honored due to mandatory consecutive sentences for sex offenses. | Statements voluntary; no coercion or invalid promise. |
| Double jeopardy for two robbery counts | Two separate robbery counts violated double jeopardy because only one act of taking occurred. | Two items taken from male victim in one incident could support two convictions. | Vacate second robbery conviction; remaining convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (US 2010) (Miranda waiver voluntariness standard; totality of circumstances)
- State v. Dixon, 332 S.W.3d 214 (Mo.App.2010) (Voluntariness depends on totality of circumstances; promise alone not determinative)
- State v. Stokes, 710 S.W.2d 424 (Mo.App.1986) (Promises to defendant in custody not per se involuntary statements)
- Williams v. State, 800 S.W.2d 739 (Mo.banc 1990) (Concerning sentencing and concurrent/consecutive implications)
- State v. Avery, 275 S.W.3d 231 (Mo.banc 2009) (Definition and use of term of imprisonment in multiple-sentence contexts)
- Burnett v. State, 311 S.W.3d 810 (Mo.App.2009) (Aggregate vs. individual sentences in multiple convictions)