Travis M. Stanley v. State of Missouri, 420 S.W.3d 532

Background

Travis M. Stanley pleaded guilty to two counts of failing to register as a sex offender pursuant to a plea agreement in which the prosecutor agreed to recommend a three-year cap (concurrent) and Stanley remained free to seek probation.
The written plea petition and oral plea colloquy stated the prosecutor’s recommendation was not binding on the court; the court warned Stanley the maximum exposure was four years per count (eight years total) but did not tell him he could not withdraw his plea if the court imposed a higher sentence.
At sentencing the court ordered a presentence report and then imposed the maximum aggregate sentence of eight years (two consecutive four-year terms); defense did not object or seek withdrawal after sentence was announced.
Stanley filed a timely pro se Rule 24.035 motion; appointed post-conviction counsel filed a timely first amended motion alleging Rule 24.02(d)(4) violations and ineffective assistance of plea counsel, but did not allege he would have gone to trial.
New post-conviction counsel later filed a second amended motion outside Rule 24.035(g)’s time limit adding that the court failed to advise Stanley he could not later withdraw his plea and alleging prejudice; the motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
The Supreme Court of Missouri held the second amended motion was time-barred (no abandonment by first appointed counsel) and that the claims in the first amended motion were refuted by the record or failed to plead prejudice, so no hearing was required.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Stanley)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Timeliness / abandonment of first post-conviction counsel	First counsel effectively abandoned Stanley by filing a deficient first amended motion, so later-added claims should be allowed despite being filed late.	Time limit for amended motions runs from initial appointment; first counsel filed a substantive amended motion so no abandonment occurred and later amendments are time-barred.	No abandonment; second amended motion filed after Rule 24.035(g) deadline is time-barred.
Applicability of Rule 24.02(d)(4) (court rejection/disclosure/withdrawal)	Court violated Rule 24.02(d)(4) by failing to inform parties it rejected the plea agreement and by not allowing withdrawal after sentencing.	The plea was a nonbinding prosecutor recommendation under Rule 24.02(d)(1)(B); the court did not "reject" the plea agreement and Rule 24.02(d)(4) does not apply.	Rule 24.02(d)(4) does not apply to nonbinding plea recommendations; record shows Stanley understood the agreement was nonbinding.
Ineffective assistance — failure to specify "concurrent" in written plea	Omitting the word "concurrent" in the written plea was counsel error that could have led to consecutive sentences.	Transcript and plea petition expressly described a three-year cap and prosecutor and judge understood/referenced concurrent recommendation; omission was not prejudicial.	No prejudice; record refutes claim and counsel was not ineffective on this point.
Ineffective assistance — failure to explain nonbinding nature / failure to object after sentence	Counsel failed to explain that court could reject recommendation and failed to object or seek withdrawal after the harsher sentence.	Court personally explained maximum exposure and nonbinding nature; counsel could not obtain relief after judge lawfully exercised sentencing discretion, and an objection would have been futile.	Record shows pleas were knowing and voluntary; no prejudice shown and counsel not ineffective; no hearing required.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice in guilty-plea context requires showing defendant would have insisted on trial)
Cooper v. State, 356 S.W.3d 148 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard for evidentiary hearing on post-conviction motion)
Eastburn v. State, 400 S.W.3d 770 (Mo. banc 2013) (limits on abandonment exception to filing deadlines)
Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (post-conviction counsel must timely file amended motion or statement)
Wilkins v. State, 802 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. banc 1991) (untimely amended post-conviction claims are barred)
Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1991) (abandonment defined as complete absence of performance)
Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1991) (abandonment where counsel knew amendment was necessary but failed to file)
Crenshaw v. State, 266 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. banc 2008) (remedy for abandonment is to restore movant to position absent abandonment)
Schellert v. State, 569 S.W.2d 735 (Mo. banc 1978) (pre-rule authority requiring disclosures and withdrawal when plea agreement rejected)
Harrison v. State, 903 S.W.2d 206 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (defendant’s understanding of nonbinding recommendation distinguishes when Rule 24.02(d)(4) applies)
State v. White, 813 S.W.2d 862 (Mo. banc 1991) (appointment date controls timing for filing amended motions)