State v. Onate
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 562
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Onate appeals the denial of a Motion for New Trial after guilty pleas to felonious restraint and second-degree murder.
- The trial court treated the motion as a Rule 29.07(d) withdrawal motion and denied it on the merits.
- Rule 29.07(d) can be invoked post-sentence only for grounds beyond Rule 24.035; here the claim involved voluntariness of the plea.
- Evidence showed Onate sought to show the State breached an essential term of the plea by not recommending a sentence lower than Hernandez.
- The trial court found no essential term and denied relief; Onate was sentenced to life for murder and seven years for felonious restraint.
- Onate’s post-judgment challenge is governed by Rule 24.035; the improper conversion did not alter the result, which was denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voluntariness claims from a guilty plea can be addressed on direct appeal | Onate contends direct appeal is proper for voluntariness. | State argues voluntariness must be raised under Rule 24.035. | Voluntariness claims may be pursued via post-conviction; direct appeal limited but allowed in certain circumstances. |
| Whether the post-judgment motion can be treated as a Rule 29.07(d) withdrawal motion | Onate argues the court can withdraw the plea under Rule 29.07(d). | State asserts 29.07(d) is inapplicable after sentencing and remand. | Rule 29.07(d) does not apply post-sentencing; the motion should be denied for lack of authority. |
| Whether the voluntariness claim falls within Rule 24.035 as exclusive relief | Onate claims entitlement under Rule 24.035 for involuntariness. | State contends the claim is within Rule 24.035 and not 29.07(d). | Voluntariness claims raised after sentencing fall under Rule 24.035; exclusive mechanism for relief. |
| Whether the trial court’s conversion of the motion affected the outcome | Conversion was improper; it should have been denied for lack of authority. | The court’s conversion led to a correct result on the merits. | Even with improper conversion, the denial of relief was correct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stevens v. State, 208 S.W.3d 893 (Mo. banc 2006) (direct appeal after guilty plea allowed for certain motion-to-withdraw claims when sentenced)
- Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2002) (Rule 29.07(d) limited after sentencing; grounds must be outside Rule 24.035)
- State v. Craig, 287 S.W.3d 676 (Mo. banc 2009) (voluntariness claims fall within Rule 24.035)
- State v. Shafer, 969 S.W.2d 719 (Mo. banc 1998) (voluntariness challenges governed by post-conviction Rule 24.035)
- State v. Thomas, 96 S.W.3d 834 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (post-sentencing Rule 29.07(d) context; distinguishable from this case)