366 S.W.3d 103
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Movant- appellant White seeks post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035 after pleading guilty to first‑degree robbery, armed criminal action, and killing or disabling a police animal.
- The motion court held an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective-assistance claim and denied relief, finding trial counsel not ineffective and the pleas voluntary and fully informed.
- The amended motion did not raise a claim that post-conviction counsel abandoned movant; thus the motion court did not address abandonment.
- Appellate review is limited to whether the motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous, and generally a claim not presented to the motion court may not be reviewed.
- The State concedes, and the court reiterates, that there is no plain-error review for denials of Rule 24.035 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was movant's abandonment by post-conviction counsel properly raised? | White | State | Not preserved; not presented to the motion court |
| Is there plain-error review for denials of Rule 24.035 relief? | White | State | There is no plain-error review in Rule 24.035 appeals |
| Whether the motion court's findings on ineffective assistance and voluntariness are clearly erroneous. | White | State | Affirmed; findings not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. State, 254 S.W.3d 856 (Mo. banc 2008) (abandonment claims must be genuine, not a substitute for ineffectiveness)
- Crenshaw v. State, 266 S.W.3d 257 (Mo. banc 2008) (proper remedy for abandonment is restoration as if abandonment hadn't occurred)
- Hoskins v. State, 329 S.W.3d 695 (Mo. banc 2010) (no plain error review on Rule 24.035 appeals)
- Bott v. State, 353 S.W.3d 404 (Mo.App. S.D.2011) (appellate review limited to motion court findings)
- Hutton v. State, 345 S.W.3d 373 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (addressed abandonment issues in Western District)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210 (Mo. banc 2001) (cited regarding procedural posture and abandonment considerations)
- Burston v. State, 343 S.W.3d 691 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (not addressing abandonment claim raised for first time)