May v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. Jackson v. State

    660 S.W.3d 679 (Mo. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    Here, as a consequence of the thoroughness of the plea court's questioning, Jackson's Rule 24.035 motion appropriately was denied without an evidentiary hearing. SeeMay v. State , 921 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) ("The case at bar falls squarely within the latter situations referred to by the [ Driver ] court.

  2. Morrison v. State

    65 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that movant's claim that guilty plea was involuntary because of counsel's alleged lack of preparation may be refuted by the plea colloquy record when the movant is aware of counsel's alleged failure yet nonetheless expresses satisfaction with counsel's performance

    We are limited in our review to a determination of whether the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were clearly erroneous. May v. State, 921 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Mo.App. 1996). We will only find the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, we are left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made.

  3. Royston v. State

    948 S.W.2d 454 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 9 times
    In Royston, the Court closely scrutinized the guilty plea hearing transcript, and found that the trial court did not ask Royston specific questions about counsel's performance and investigation.

    Driver , 912 S.W.2d at 55-56. While Driver concerned a Rule 29.15 motion following jury trial, later decisions have applied it to Rule 24.035 motions following entry of a plea of guilty. Summers v. State , 934 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. App. 1996); Bauer v. State , 926 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. App. 1996); May v. State , 921 S.W.2d 85, 88-89 (Mo. App. 1996); Van v. State , 918 S.W.2d 921 (Mo. App. 1996). Of course, as Driver itself noted, the trial court usually conducts a more detailed inquiry at guilty plea hearings than at a 29.07(b)(4) hearing, and thus the guilty plea hearing transcript is more likely to contain detailed responses which may conclusively refute later claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

  4. Morrison v. Lewis

    No. 1:18 CV 32 DDN (E.D. Mo. Feb. 8, 2021)

    In State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 55-56 (Mo. banc 1995), the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the questions asked of movant during his plea hearing were too broad to conclusively refute ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. However, where the movant enters a guilty plea, the court may give "numerous opportunities to express dissatisfaction with the performance of counsel" without meeting the Driver requirements regarding the specificity of questions. May v. State, 921 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996). Because Morrison plead guilty, Driver is not persuasive.

  5. Humbles v. Steele

    Case No. 4:10CV1072 JCH (E.D. Mo. Jul. 20, 2011)

    The appellate court went on to find that, despite Petitioner's assertions to the contrary, the plea court's inquiries regarding assistance of counsel were numerous and specific enough to conclusively refute the allegations, stating: Where, as here, the plea court's examination provides the movant "numerous opportunities to express dissatisfaction with the performance of counsel," and the movant declines to express such dissatisfaction, the record conclusively refutes the movant's allegations of ineffective assistance, even when the plea court does not specifically ask the movant about the particular deficiency complained of in his or her motion for post-conviction relief. May v. State, 921 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Mo.App.W.D. 1996) (distinguishing [State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. banc 1995), cited by Petitioner] on similar grounds); see also Morrison v. State, 65 S.W.3d 561, 564 (Mo.App.W.D. 2002) (same); Cupp v. State, 935 S.W.2d 367, 369-70 (Mo.App.S.D. 1996) (same). (Resp.

  6. Brown v. State

    66 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. 2002)   Cited 82 times
    Holding that Rule 91 provides the proper avenue for relief "in those limited circumstances" in which a petitioner asserts a claim of the type enumerated in Rule 24.035, but which it time-barred under that rule, and the petitioner can meet the applicable cause and prejudice or manifest injustice standard

    Driver concerned a Rule 29.15 motion following jury trial; however, later decisions have applied it to Rule 24.035 motions following entry of a plea of guilty. See e.g. Royston v. State , 948 S.W.2d 454, 456 (Mo.App.W.D. 1997); Summers v. State , 934 S.W.2d 563, 567 (Mo.App.S.D. 1996); May v. State , 921 S.W.2d 85, 88-89 (Mo.App.W.D. 1996). Since, here, Mr. Brown is raising a claim that he would have been required to raise under Rule 24.035 had he been aware of it within the time limitations set out in that rule, it is appropriate to apply this standard to Mr. Brown's habeas claim also.

  7. Morrison v. State

    536 S.W.3d 782 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    However, where the movant enters a guilty plea, the court may give "numerous opportunities to express dissatisfaction with the performance of counsel" without meeting the Driver requirements regarding the specificity of questions. May v. State, 921 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996). Because Morrison plead guilty. Driver is not persuasive. See generally Morrison v. State, 65 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (affirming the denial of movant's Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because movant had ample opportunities to raise any questions about his counsel's performance yet repeatedly expressed satisfaction with counsel when directly questioned at the plea hearing).[A] motion court properly denies an evidentiary hearing on a motion for post-conviction relief where the movant repeatedly assured the plea court that he was satisfied with counsel's representation and that counsel did everything he requested and the movant was given "ample opportunity to express his duress" to the court.

  8. Bogard v. State

    356 S.W.3d 850 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 5 times

    Here, Bogard pleaded guilty and was subject to extensive questioning to determine whether his decision was fully informed and voluntary and to determine whether he was satisfied with counsel. “In [ May v. State ], this court held that at a plea hearing such as the one in the instant case, the court may give ‘numerous opportunities to express dissatisfaction with the performance of counsel’ without meeting the Driver requirements regarding the specificity of questions.” Morrison v. State, 65 S.W.3d 561, 564 (Mo.App. W.D.2002) (quoting May v. State, 921 S.W.2d 85, 88 (1996)). Here, Bogard had multiple opportunities to complain about the performance of his counsel regarding counsel's alleged failure to investigate (a complaint of which he should have been aware at the plea hearing).

  9. Schnelle v. State

    103 S.W.3d 165 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 6 times
    Finding counsel prejudicially ineffective for not objecting to the striking of potentially helpful testimony

    Rousan v. State, 48 S.W.3d 576, 581 (Mo.banc 2001). We will only find the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, we are left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. May v. State, 921 S.W.2d 85, 86 (Mo.App. 1996). Points on Appeal

  10. Summers v. State

    934 S.W.2d 563 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 6 times

    Movant likewise told the trial court, both during the guilty plea hearing and the Rule 29.07 inquiry, that his trial attorney had done everything he was asked to do and there was nothing movant "might have" wanted his trial attorney to do that the attorney did not do. The circumstances of this case are more akin to May v. State, 921 S.W.2d 85 (Mo.App. 1996), than to Driver. In both this case and May there were guilty pleas based on negotiated plea agreements: Both pleas were determined by the trial courts taking those pleas to have been entered voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly.