Yarberry v. State
372 S.W.3d 568
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Yarberry was charged on August 27, 2009 as a prior and persistent offender with two counts of domestic assault in the second degree and two counts of armed criminal action, alleged to have occurred against his spouse on May 30, 2009.
- On October 23, 2009, Yarberry pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement; the court found a factual basis, voluntary pleas, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and imposed two concurrent six-year terms in DOC.
- In April 2010, Yarberry filed pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion; counsel was appointed and filed an amended motion alleging ineffective assistance for failure to investigate and related misadvice.
- An evidentiary hearing was held on May 19, 2011; trial counsel testified he believed Yarberry’s spouse would testify and that police-report testimony could suffice; the State’s prosecutor testified she subpoenaed the spouse and anticipated her testimony; Yarberry testified he was misled about the need for witness testimony.
- Yarberry’s spouse testified she was never contacted or subpoenaed and would not testify even if subpoenaed; the motion court denied relief, concluding no ineffective assistance or involuntariness of the plea.
- On appeal, Yarberry challenges the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion and raises issues about counsel’s investigation and the adequacy of post-conviction counsel; the court affirms the motion court’s judgment and discusses Martinez v. Ryan’s limited applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failure to investigate | Yarberry claims plea counsel failed to investigate and misinformed him about testimony and evidence. | Tyrrell/State contend counsel adequately investigated and advised within reasonable professional judgment. | Denied; court found no deficient investigation or prejudice. |
| Post-conviction counsel's omission of claims | Yarberry asserts post-conviction counsel failed to raise known claims in the amended motion, causing prejudice. | State argues such claims are categorically unreviewable; Martinez does not apply here. | Denied; court affirmed on the basis that post-conviction counsel claims are unreviewable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. State, 301 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. Div. 2010) (reasonableness of investigation governs defense strategy)
- Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (U.S. 2005) (limits on defense duty to investigate)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice required)
- Mendez v. State, 180 S.W.3d 75 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (credibility evaluations defer to motion court)
- Welch v. State, 326 S.W.3d 916 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (plea waives most ineffective assistance claims)
- Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (post-conviction counsel claims categorically unreviewable)
- Hutchison v. State, 150 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2004) (post-conviction counsel claims categorically unreviewable)
- Chaney v. State, 223 S.W.3d 200 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (preponderance of the evidence standard in post-conviction relief)
- Martinez v. Ryan, — U.S. —, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) (limited federal habeas relief for ineffective assistance claims in initial-review collateral proceedings)