Vernell Whitley v. State of Missouri
501 S.W.3d 531
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Movant Vernell Whitley was charged with two counts of first‑degree robbery and two counts of armed criminal action for a February 2012 theft involving an apparent deadly weapon. He was on probation at arrest and his probation was revoked in August 2012.
- Movant filed multiple speedy‑trial motions (Aug. 2012, Jan. 2013, Sept. 2013); trial was set for Jan. 21, 2014. The trial court heard and denied his motion to dismiss for a speedy‑trial violation, finding significant delay but attributing 11.5 months to defense continuances and no egregious or prejudicial State conduct.
- At the January 21, 2014 proceeding Movant withdrew his not‑guilty plea and entered a guilty plea (an Alford‑type plea), expressly acknowledging he did not admit the charged facts but wished to avoid trial; the court advised him he would waive appellate rights and imposed concurrent 15‑year sentences.
- Movant filed a Rule 24.035 post‑conviction motion arguing plea counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that a guilty plea waived the right to appeal the court’s denial of his speedy‑trial motion; he asserted he would have gone to trial if properly informed. The motion court held an evidentiary hearing.
- At the hearing plea counsel testified he discussed in a "general sense" that pleading guilty would waive appeal rights and the trial court expressly warned Movant he was giving up the right to appeal; Movant testified he believed the waiver applied only to the verdict, not the speedy‑trial ruling, and that he pled to gamble for a lesser sentence.
- The motion court disbelieved Movant’s claim that he would have gone to trial if fully advised and denied relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no clear error in the credibility finding and no prejudice from counsel’s conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Whitley’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for not specifically advising that a guilty plea waived appeal of the speedy‑trial ruling | Counsel failed to tell Whitley that pleading guilty waived his right to appeal the speedy‑trial denial, so plea was involuntary | Trial court and counsel warned Whitley he would waive appellate rights; Whitley chose to plead guilty as a strategic gamble and would have pled regardless | Denied — court found counsel’s general warnings plus the court’s advisement and Whitley’s stated strategy show plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether Whitley was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficiency (would have insisted on trial) | But for counsel’s omission, there is a reasonable probability Whitley would have gone to trial to pursue the speedy‑trial claim | Credibility finding: Whitley would not have proceeded to trial; record shows he wanted to plead guilty despite claiming innocence | Denied — no prejudice shown because record indicates Whitley would have pled guilty anyway |
Key Cases Cited
- Weeks v. State, 140 S.W.3d 39 (Mo. banc 2004) (standard of review for denial of Rule 24.035 motions)
- Wilkins v. State, 802 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. banc 1991) (plea voluntariness & counsel ineffectiveness after guilty plea)
- Ervin v. State, 423 S.W.3d 789 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (ineffective assistance test and prejudice standard post‑plea)
- Simmons v. State, 429 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (motion court credibility determinations are binding on appeal)
- Voyles v. State, 272 S.W.3d 921 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (where record shows defendant would have pled regardless, no prejudice from counsel’s error)
- Wilson v. State, 813 S.W.2d 833 (Mo. banc 1991) (presumption of correctness for motion court findings)
- Chaney v. State, 223 S.W.3d 200 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (Alford plea treated like guilty plea for voluntariness review)