Alford plea in Missouri

2025The crime lab determined the substance in the baggie was methamphetamine.3 Prior to entering his plea, Davis understood that entering into an Alford plea meant that he was not willing to admit the facts alleged against him, but that he was willing to admit that if the case went to trial there was a likelihood or probability of conviction. 2 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 3 Neither the baggie nor the lab report was admitted into evidence at the PCR hearing. 2 Davis was sentenced with the execution of the sentence suspended, and he was placed on supervised probation.

2025The court sentenced Vickers to fifteen years on both the voluntary manslaughter and the armed criminal action counts, and seven years on the second-degree assault count, with those sentences to run concurrently. 2 Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2020). 3 “An Alford plea allows a defendant to plead guilty to the charged crime and accept criminal penalty even if he is unwilling or unable to admit he committed the acts constituting the crime.” Frazier v. State, 581 S.W.3d 118 , 121 n.2 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019) (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970)). 2 Vickers timely filed a pro se Ru

2025"An Alford plea ... stands on equal footing with one in which an accused specifically admits the commission of the particular act charged." Wilson v. State, 813 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Mo. banc 1991) (internal quotation omitted). 2 as part of a ritual or ceremony.

2024Generally speaking (and as relevant here), the effect of an accepted Alford plea is the same as that of any other guilty plea: “An Alford plea ... stands on equal footing with one in which an accused specifically admits the commission of the particular acts charged.” Wilson v. State, 813 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Mo. banc 1991) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

2024One of the 2 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). "[A] defendant may enter what is, in effect, a guilty plea, even though the defendant protests that he or she is innocent of the crime charged." Nguyen v. State, 184 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). "[I]n reviewing a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035, an Alford plea is not treated differently from a guilty plea." Id. 3 The State, in its brief, points out that if Tinsley had proceeded to trial, and the State had proceeded with the charges contained in the amended felony complaint, Tinsley, as a pri

2024One of the 2 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). "[A] defendant may enter what is, in effect, a guilty plea, even though the defendant protests that he or she is innocent of the crime charged." Nguyen v. State, 184 S.W.3d 149, 152 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). "[I]n reviewing a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035, an Alford plea is not treated differently from a guilty plea." Id. 3 The State, in its brief, points out that if Tinsley had proceeded to trial, and the State had proceeded with the charges contained in the amended felony complaint, Tinsley, as a pri

2007Where, as here, there is a negotiated plea of guilty, a claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel is immaterial except to the extent it impinges upon the volun-tarine'sst and knowledge with which the guilty plea was made.” Cupp, 935 S.W.2d at 368 . ‘An Alford plea is not treated differently- than a guilty plea where the accused admits the commission of the crime charged.” Id. “ ‘As with any guilty plea, an Alford plea is valid if it “represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Sexton v. State, 36 S.W.3d 782, 7

2006As with any guilty plea, an Alford plea is valid if it “represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” Sexton v. State, 36 S.W.3d 782, 785 (Mo.App.

2013“In reviewing a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035, an Alford plea is not treated differently from a guilty plea.” O’Neal v. State, 236 S.W.3d 91, 95 (Mo.App.E.D.2007).

2013“When a movant who has entered an Alford plea asserts that there is an inadequate factual basis for the plea, the court necessarily takes into account the fact that with an Alford plea there is an explicit refusal to acknowledge guilt.” Id. at 96 .

2015“In reviewing a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035, an Alford plea is not treated differently from a guilty plea.” Lynn v. State, 417 S.W.3d 789, 796 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013).

2015“In reviewing a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035, an Alford plea is not treated differently from a guilty plea.” Lynn v. State, 417 S.W.3d 789, 796 (Mo.App.2013). 3 .

2025Michaels v. State, 346 S.W.3d 404, 408 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011). 2 year term.

2013A. Claims That the Trial Court Improperly Accepted Movant’s Plea “As with any guilty plea, an Alford plea is valid if it represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” Michaels v. State, 346 S.W.3d 404, 408 (Mo.App.S.D.2011) (quotation omitted).

2025We have independently verified the timeliness of his motions as required by Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822, 825-26 (Mo. banc 2015). 9 not have entered an Alford plea had he known the judge’s views on an Alford plea, if he had been told he would have to serve 85 percent of any sentence the judge might impose, or if he knew he would not be getting SIS or SES.

2015See § 195.222,8(1); Gettings v. Mo. Dept. of Corrections, 950 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Mo.App. 1997) (because the defendant was not statutorily denied parole, his parole eligibility was up to the discretion of the DOC’s parole board). 4 .As required by Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822, 825 (Mo. banc 2015), this Court has independently verified that the amended motion was timely pursuant to Rule 24.035(g). 5 .

2015"An Alford plea ... 'stands on equal footing with one in which an accused specifically admits the commission of the particular act charged.'” Wilson v. State, 813 S.W.2d 833, 843 (Mo. banc 1991) (quoting Jenkins v. State, 788 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Mo.App.S.D.1990)).

1991An Alford plea, however, “stands on equal footing with one in which an accused specifically admits the commission of the particular act charged.” Jenkins v. State, 788 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Mo.App.1990).

2013W.D.2000); M.A.B. v. Nicely, 909 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Mo. banc 1995) (holding that finding of guilt as a result of an Alford plea which resulted in a suspended imposition of sentence was not a conviction for purposes of section 491.050).

2004See State v. Henry, 88 S.W.3d 451, 454-55 (Mo.App.2002); see also M.A.B. v. Nicely, 909 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Mo.banc 1995).

2007Patrick v. State, 160 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo.App.

2006Wilson, 813 S.W.2d at 843 ; Patrick v. State, 160 S.W.3d 452, 455 (Mo.App.

2006See, e.g., Smith v. State, 141 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Mo.App.2004).

2006“In reviewing a motion for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 24.035, an Alford plea is not treated differently than a guilty plea.” Sexton v. State, 36 S.W.3d 782 , 783 n. 2 (Mo.App.2001); see Smith v. State, 141 S.W.3d 108, 111 (Mo.App.2004).

2005See e.g., Nimrod v. State, 14 S.W.3d 103, 106 (Mo.App.2000).

2001See also Nimrod, 14 S.W.3d at 106 .

2000Not only is movant’s allegation that he was coerced into pleading guilty a conclusory statement and provides no factual basis for his charge, see Fairley v. State, 770 S.W.2d 458, 460 (Mo.App.1989), the facts belie his conclusory allegation.

1993“As with any guilty plea, an Alford plea is valid if it ‘represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.’ ” Fairley v. State, 770 S.W.2d 458, 459 (Mo.App.1989) (quoting Alford, 400 U.S. at 31 , 91 S.Ct. at 164 ).

2024Though Missouri judges are not required to accept an Alford plea, State v. Williams, 937 S.W.2d 330 , 333–34 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1996), they may grant an Alford plea, Washington v. State, 598 S.W.3d 656 , 663 n.10 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). 2 eligible for parole, asked plea counsel about the percentages she would have to serve, and plea counsel responded that he “did not know because the Department of Corrections decides what percentages she will serve taking into account her remands and the percentages ‘change all the time.’” The motion court held an evidentiary hearing, at which both plea counsel

2004State v. Williams, 937 S.W.2d 330, 333-34 (Mo.App.1996).

2016Wilkins v. State, 802 S.W.2d 491, 497 (Mo. banc 1991); Loudermilk v. State, 973 S.W.2d 551, 553 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); see also Chaney v. State, 223 S.W.3d 200, 206 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (Alford plea is treated same as guilty plea where defendant admits to committing crimes charged).

2011“As with any guilty plea, an Alford plea is valid if it represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted).

2000While the movant hesitantly maintained his innocence, one who “has entered an Alford plea, like any other movant, has the burden to allege facts which would show his plea was not voluntarily or knowingly made.” Gilliehan v. State, 865 S.W.2d 752, 756 (Mo.App.1993).

1996Id.

2025See Tinsley v. State, 685 S.W.3d 56 , 60 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (quoting Easley v. State, 623 S.W.3d 211 , 216 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021)) (finding “[t]o establish prejudice in a guilty-plea case, the movant must prove that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have demanded a trial, but for counsel’s errors” after movant entered an Alford plea); Cooper v. State, 621 S.W.3d 624 , 636 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (holding once a movant has pled guilty they can only establish prejudice sufficient to satisfy a claim on ineffective assistance of counsel if movant shows there is a reasonable probability he wo

2025See Tinsley v. State, 685 S.W.3d 56 , 60 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (quoting Easley v. State, 623 S.W.3d 211 , 216 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021)) (finding “[t]o establish prejudice in a guilty-plea case, the movant must prove that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have demanded a trial, but for counsel’s errors” after movant entered an Alford plea); Cooper v. State, 621 S.W.3d 624 , 636 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (holding once a movant has pled guilty they can only establish prejudice sufficient to satisfy a claim on ineffective assistance of counsel if movant shows there is a reasonable probability he wo

2025See Tinsley v. State, 685 S.W.3d 56 , 60 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (quoting Easley v. State, 623 S.W.3d 211 , 216 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021)) (finding “[t]o establish prejudice in a guilty-plea case, the movant must prove that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have demanded a trial, but for counsel’s errors” after movant entered an Alford plea); Cooper v. State, 621 S.W.3d 624 , 636 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (holding once a movant has pled guilty they can only establish prejudice sufficient to satisfy a claim on ineffective assistance of counsel if movant shows there is a reasonable probability he wo

2024Steger v. State, 467 S.W.3d 887, 890 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).

2023Both pleas require similar findings by the trial court, as courts in Missouri “cannot accept a plea of guilty or an Alford plea[] in a felony case unless the defendant is found to be mentally competent, the plea is freely and voluntarily given, and a factual basis exists for the plea.” James, 49 S.W.3d at 686 (footnote omitted). 10 Baxter Springs police officer who investigated the burglary, and to the State’s closing argument.

2023Both pleas require similar findings by the trial court, as courts in Missouri “cannot accept a plea of guilty or an Alford plea[] in a felony case unless the defendant is found to be mentally competent, the plea is freely and voluntarily given, and a factual basis exists for the plea.” James, 49 S.W.3d at 686 (footnote omitted). 10 Baxter Springs police officer who investigated the burglary, and to the State’s closing argument.