Evidence led the police to Nettles, Shelton, and White. See generally State v. Nettles, 481 S.W.3d 62, 64-65 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). On March 14, 2014, a St. Louis jury convicted Petitioner of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and two counts of armed criminal action in connection with Victim's death.
In Frye , the Supreme Court of the United States explained: To the extent the per curiam relies on State v. Nettles, 481 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. App. 2015) in footnote 4 for illustrative purposes in applying a presumption of prejudice pursuant to Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980), it is significant that, in Nettles, the court of appeals was not addressing a procedure to be used at an evidentiary hearing to determine if an actual conflict of interests existed or if prejudice had been demonstrated. Instead, the issue addressed, and the holding of Nettles, was that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on an actual conflict of interests in a dual-representation scenario at trial, "is not cognizable on direct appeal and must be raised in a post-conviction motion."
"[A] party may be excused from the requirement of an offer of proof when there is a complete understanding from the record what the excluded testimony would have been, the objection relates to a category of evidence rather than specific testimony, and the record shows the evidence would have helped its proponent." State v. Rieser, 569 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (citing State v. Jones, 546 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) and State v. Nettles, 481 S.W.3d 62, 71 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015)); see also State v. Williams, 724 S.W.2d 652, 656 (Mo. App. E.D. 1986) ("The lack of a formal 'offer of proof' fails to constitute a basis to sustain a conviction when the offered testimony . . . has been identified and its relevance is explained."). Because the record in this case is sufficient to allow this Court a complete understanding of the proffered evidence, we find that Defendant's detailed opposition to the State's objections at trial were sufficient to preserve the issue for review.
Movant’s conflict of interest claim, framed as a circuit court error, is not cognizable on direct appeal; instead, this claim must be raised as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Rule 24.035. DePriest v. State, 510 S.W.3d 331, 342 (Mo. banc 2017) (citing State v. Nettles, 481 S.W.3d 62, 68 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015)). "[T]he movant must plead facts from which the motion court could find that counsel acted under an actual—not merely potential—conflict of interest that adversely affected the adequacy of counsel’s representation."
[21] Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 29.15 (2022) explicitly states that it is the "exclusive procedure" by which a person convicted of a felony after a trial may seek relief for claims of ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel. Rule 29.15(a); see also State v. Nettles, 481 S.W.3d 62, 68-69 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (claims for ineffective assistance of counsel are not cognizable on direct appeal, even if compelling). Bateman has not filed his claim for ineffective assistance pursuant to Rule 29.15, and this Court has no authority to consider it on direct appeal.
Because Defendant attempts to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in Points I and II on direct appeal, we must deny both points as a matter of law and without further review. See West, 551 S.W.3d at 517; State v. Nettles, 481 S.W.3d 62, 71 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).
Under these circumstances, the narrative offer of proof was insufficient to preserve for our review Appellant’s claims regarding the "exclusionary) list" and the social media post. See Brand, 544 S.W.3d at 290; State v. Nettles, 481 S.W.3d 62, 72 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). We review Appellant’s preserved claim for an abuse of discretion.
See Brand, 544 S.W.3d at 290; State v. Nettles, 481 S.W.3d 62, 72 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).
However, clear and established Missouri precedent holds that claims such as Harris's are not suitable for review on direct appeal, but are more properly cognizable as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, which can only be raised in Rule 29.15 motions. State v. Nettles, 481 S.W.3d 62, 67 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015); State v. Celis-Garcia, 420 S.W.3d 723, 730 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014).
Since Rule 29.15 is the exclusive procedure for litigating post-conviction relief claims, "a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, even if compelling, is not cognizable on direct appeal." State v. Nettles , 481 S.W.3d 62, 69 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) ; State v. Webber , 504 S.W.3d 221, 230 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). It is axiomatic that a party cannot abandon a claim by failing to challenge it on direct appeal if that claim is not cognizable on direct appeal.