Wiggins v. State

17 Citing cases

  1. Wiggins v. Payne

    Case No. 4:17 CV 1077 CDP (E.D. Mo. Jul. 2, 2018)

    On April 28, 2015, the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the matter to the motion court for an evidentiary hearing. Wiggins v. State, 480 S.W.3d 379 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). After an evidentiary hearing on remand, the motion court again denied Wiggins' post-conviction motion, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed on March 7, 2017. Wiggins v. State, 512 S.W.3d 106 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017) (order) (per curiam).

  2. Whitehead v. State

    481 S.W.3d 116 (E.D. Mo. 2016)

    The trial court asked Whitehead whether he understood the elements of each offense to which he was pleading guilty. Whitehead stated that he did. Whitehead then pleaded guilty to the first-degree robbery charge, specifically admitting that he committed each element of the crime.This Court has recently stated that, while counsel may advise a defendant to plead guilty based on the circumstances in a given case, “counsel still has the basic duty to discuss the circumstances and possible consequences of entering a plea, including possible defenses to the offense charged, in order to ensure that the defendant makes an informed and intelligent decision about waiving the right to trial,” Wiggins v. State, 480 S.W.3d 379, 383, 2015 WL 1915324, at *2 (Mo.App. E.D. Apr. 28, 2015). In Wiggins, the defendant, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging his attorney was ineffective for failing to advise him of the possibility of proceeding to trial on a theory that he was guilty of the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter.

  3. Johnson v. State

    580 S.W.3d 895 (Mo. 2019)   Cited 27 times
    In Johnson v. State, 580 S.W.3d 895 (Mo. 2019), the Supreme Court held that the availability of the death penalty in a particular murder prosecution does not make a defendant’s plea to lesser charges involuntary or coerced: "the fact that the maximum authorized punishment for a certain crime may be a threatening alternative in itself does not render a plea involuntary."

    While counsel may ultimately advise a defendant to plead guilty based on the circumstances in a given case, counsel still has the basic duty to discuss the circumstances and possible consequences of entering a plea, including possible defenses to the offense charged, in order to ensure that the defendant makes an informed and intelligent decision about waiving the right to trial. Wiggins v. State, 480 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Mo. App. 2015). A plea "must not only be a voluntary expression of the defendant’s choice, it must be a knowing and intelligent act done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences of the act."

  4. Gaines v. State

    No. ED112160 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 22, 2024)

    Failure by plea counsel to advise a defendant of a possible defense may render a guilty plea unknowing and involuntary. Wiggins v. State, 480 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).

  5. Rainey v. State

    696 S.W.3d 926 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024)

    Counsel’s failure to inform a defendant of possible defenses may render a guilty plea unknowing and involuntary. Wiggins v. State, 480 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Viewing the evidence with deference to the motion court, we find no clear error.

  6. Thomas v. State

    679 S.W.3d 550 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)

    "It is counsel’s basic duty ‘to discuss the circumstances and possible consequences of entering a plea in order to ensure that the defendant makes an informed and intelligent decision about waiving the right to a trial.’" Lusk, 655 S.W.3d at 234 (quoting Wiggins v. State, 480 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015)).

  7. Wyatt v. State

    662 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)

    While [plea] counsel may ultimately advise a defendant to plead guilty based on the circumstances in a given case, counsel still has the basic duty to discuss the circumstances and possible consequences of entering a plea, including possible defenses to the offense charged, in order to ensure that the defendant makes an informed and intelligent decision about waiving the right to trial. Wiggins v. State , 480 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).

  8. Lusk v. State

    655 S.W.3d 230 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 8 times

    Id. (quoting Deck v. State , 68 S.W.3d 418, 429 (Mo. banc 2002) ). Where there is a guilty plea, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is immaterial ‘except to the extent that the conduct affected the voluntariness and knowledge with which the plea was made.’ " Rice v. State , 550 S.W.3d 565, 569 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (quoting Wiggins v. State , 480 S.W.3d 379, 383 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) ). It is counsel's basic duty "to discuss the circumstances and possible consequences of entering a plea in order to ensure that the defendant makes an informed and intelligent decision about waiving the right to a trial."

  9. State v. Day

    651 S.W.3d 844 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    See , e.g. , State v. Clay , 533 S.W.3d 710, 716–17 (Mo. 2017) ; State v. Smith , 522 S.W.3d 221, 227 (Mo. 2017) ; State v. Welch , 600 S.W.3d 796, 807 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) ; State v. Ayansu , 558 S.W.3d 135, 139 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) ; State v. Edwards , 530 S.W.3d 593, 605-06 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) ; State v. Casey , 517 S.W.3d 570, 573-74 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) ; State v. Payne , 488 S.W.3d 161, 165 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) ; State v. Davis , 474 S.W.3d 179, 187-88 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015)SeeWynes v. State , 628 S.W.3d 786, 798 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) ; Kulhanek v. State , 560 S.W.3d 94, 102 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) ; Wiggins v. State , 480 S.W.3d 379, 383-84 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) The reasoning of Graven applies equally here.

  10. Smith v. State

    617 S.W.3d 499 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021)

    To warrant an evidentiary hearing on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Movant must allege unrefuted facts showing that his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that he was prejudiced thereby. Wiggins v. State , 480 S.W.3d 379, 382-83 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) ; see alsoStrickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). If the court determines that the motion and the files and records of the case in question conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief, no hearing in required.