Wild v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 941
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wild was charged with ten counts of forgery and one count of resisting arrest.
- She pled guilty to three forgery counts; seven forgery counts and the resisting arrest count were dismissed.
- The State recommended a total of 21 years’ imprisonment, to run consecutively for the three forgery counts.
- At the request of Wild, the Sentencing Assessment Report (SAR) was prepared, but the court sentenced her to 21 years rather than the SAR suggestion.
- Wild filed a Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel based on alleged misrepresentation about the SAR sentence.
- The court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing; on appeal, the record showed her plea was voluntary and informed and the claim was rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 24.035 denial was clearly erroneous. | Wild | Wild's claim lacks merit; plea voluntary | Denied; record refutes involuntariness claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burnett v. State, 311 S.W.3d 810 (Mo. App. E.D.2009) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice must be shown)
- Eberspacher v. State, 915 S.W.2d 384 (Mo. App. W.D.1996) (voluntary and knowing guilty plea bars relief for ineffective assistance)
- Berry v. State, 336 S.W.3d 159 (Mo. App. E.D.2011) (clear error standard for Rule 24.035 determinations)