ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Missouri

2023The defendant “must satisfy both the performance prong and the prejudice prong to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Sanders, 738 S.W.2d at 857 .

2005A movant “must satisfy both the performance prong and the prejudice prong to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Sanders v. State, [ 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo.banc 1987) ], (emphasis in original).

2024To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a movant must satisfy the two-pronged test announced in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Staten v. State, 624 S.W.3d 748 , 750 (Mo. banc 2021).

2023Strickland Standard for Post-Conviction Relief Success on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires a movant to satisfy the two-pronged test established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).

2021As a result, in order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim following a guilty plea, a movant “must establish a serious dereliction of duty that materially affected his substantial rights and further show that his guilty plea was not an intelligent or knowing act.” Evans v. State, 921 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996).

2021As a result, in order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim following a guilty plea, a movant “must establish a serious dereliction of duty that materially affected his substantial rights and further show that his guilty plea was not an intelligent or knowing act.” Evans v. State, 921 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996).

2017At the time that [trial counsel Courtney Goodwin] talked to him she indicated in the file that he did not request a change of judge.” To justify the denial of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be “specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation.” [Emphasis added.] State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Mo. banc 1995).

2016The motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant an evidentiary hearing, “To justify the denial of an evi-dentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be ‘specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation.’ ” Lomax, 163 S.W.3d at 563 (quoting State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Mo.banc 1995)).

2014Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 729, 746 (Mo. banc 1997).

2012Analysis “In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, [Hendrix] must show by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) trial counsel’s performance was deficient because [he] failed to exercise the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would exercise in similar circumstances; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced [Hendrix].” Dawson v. State, 315 S.W.3d 726, 731 (Mo. App. W.D.2010) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Simmons, 955 S.W.2d 729, 746 (Mo. banc 1997)).

1990In particular, “[w]hen an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on counsel’s alleged failure to investigate, movant must allege ‘what specific information the attorney failed to discover, that reasonable investigation would have disclosed that information, and that the information would have aided or improved [mov-ant’s] position.’” Thomas, 736 S.W.2d at 519 [1, 2] (quoting Rice v. State, 585 S.W.2d 488, 493 (Mo. banc 1979)).

1989Thomas v. State, 736 S.W.2d 518, 519 (Mo.App. 1987).

2025Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170, 176 (Mo. banc 2009).

2023See id.; accord Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170, 188 (Mo. banc 2009) (“[T]rial counsel is not ineffective for failing to make non-meritorious objections.”) (internal quotation omitted); McFadden v. State, 553 S.W.3d 289, 317 (Mo. banc 2018) (noting that the failure to make “meritless objections” cannot support a Strickland claim).

2016The motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant an evidentiary hearing, “To justify the denial of an evi-dentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be ‘specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation.’ ” Lomax, 163 S.W.3d at 563 (quoting State v. Driver, 912 S.W.2d 52, 56 (Mo.banc 1995)).

2014“To justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegations.” Lomax v. State, 163 S.W.3d 561, 563 (Mo.App.E.D.2005)(quotation omitted).

1995Id. at 916 [5], The motion court found no evidence that moving the trial to some location across the state from St.

1988Richardson, 719 S.W.2d at 915 . *485 To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a movant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense.

1989Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Harvey, 692 S.W.2d 290, 292 (Mo. banc 1985).

1985The United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), provides the standards for judging an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and in State v. Harvey, 692 S.W.2d 290, 291-292 (Mo. banc 1985), recently decided by the Supreme Court of Missouri, follows those standards: The due process clauses and the sixth amendment guarantee an accused a fair trial.

2015Analysis The State’s sole point on appeal is that the motion court clearly erred in granting Hendrix’s motion for post-conviction relief because Hendrix failed to carry his burden at the evidentiary hearing to demonstrate that plea counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate a possible mental disease or defect defense. “ ‘To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on inadequate investigation, movant must specifically describe the information the attorney failed to discover, allege that a reasonable investigation would have resulted in the discovery o

2013“To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on inadequate investigation, movant must specifically describe the information the attorney failed to discover, allege that a reasonable investigation would have resulted' in the discovery of such information and prove that the information would have aided or improved movant’s position.” Id.

2010“To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, [Appellant] must show that (1) trial counsel’s performance was deficient in that he failed to exercise the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced [Appellant].” State v. Rich, 950 S.W.2d 337, 339 (Mo.App.

2010“To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, [Appellant] must show that (1) trial counsel’s performance was deficient in that he failed to exercise the customary skill and diligence that a reasonably competent attorney would perform under similar circumstances and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced [Appellant].” State v. Rich, 950 S.W.2d 337, 339 (Mo.App.

2025However, “misinforming—in contrast to failing to inform—may affect the voluntariness of a defendant's plea.” Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Mo. banc 2011).

2021“To justify the denial of an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the record must be specific enough to refute conclusively the movant’s allegation[s].” Whitehead v. State, 481 S.W.3d 116, 126 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 439 S.W.3d 820, 822 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014)). “[A] negative response to a routine inquiry whether any promise other than stated on the record had been made is too general to encompass all possible 6 statements by counsel to his client.” Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 129 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Shackleford v. State, 51 S.W.3d 12

2024"Reasonable trial strategy decisions cannot form the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim." Hays v. State, 484 S.W.3d 121, 132 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (quoting Griffith v. State, 233 S.W.3d 774, 778 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007)).

2023Thus, “[r]easonable trial strategy decisions cannot form the basis of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Griffith v. State, 233 S.W.3d 774, 778 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007).

2024“A reasonable strategy, even if it looks imperfect in hindsight, cannot provide the basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566, 575 (Mo. banc 2005).

2023Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566, 573 (Mo. banc 2005).

2019Taylor v. State, 403 S.W.3d 683, 686 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).

2015Taylor v. State, 403 S.W.3d 683, 686 (Mo.App.W.D.2013).

2016As recognized by the principal opinion, even though the 'motion court expressly addressed only the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, ”[a]ll fact issues upon which no specific .findings are made shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached.” Rule 73.01(c); see also Johnson v. State, 388 S.W.3d 159, 168 (Mo. banc 2012) (applying Rule 78.07(c) to a Rule 29.15 motion, requiring movant to raise the omission of required findings in a motion to amend the judgment).

2016Because the defense's overall trial strategy was furthered by the non-specific verdict directors, and because the risk of non-unanimous verdicts was low from the defense's perspective, trial counsel's failure to object to the non-specific verdict directors was a reasonable trial strategy.1 1 As recognized by the principal opinion, even though the motion court expressly addressed only the prejudice prong of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, "[a]ll fact issues upon which no specific findings are made shall be considered as having been found in accordance with the result reached." Rule

2011Workes v. State, 751 S.W.2d 414, 415 (Mo.App.

2010Workes v. State, 751 S.W.2d 414, 415 (Mo.App.

2003S.D.2002) (citing Sidebottom v. State, 781 S.W.2d 791, 796 (Mo. banc 1989)).

2002Sidebottom v. State, 781 S.W.2d 791, 796 (Mo.banc 1989).

2008State v. Harris, 870 S.W.2d 798, 816 (Mo. banc 1994).

2008State v. Harris, 870 S.W.2d 798, 816 (Mo. banc 1994).

2012“The choice of witnesses is ordinarily a matter *531 of trial strategy and will not support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Strong v. State, 263 S.W.3d 636, 652 (Mo. banc 2008) (Strong II).

2012See Strong II, 263 S.W.3d at 652 (“The choice of witnesses is ordinarily a matter of trial strategy and will not support an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.”) Failure to Call Treating Nurses Gast and Johns Baumruk claims that the motion court clearly erred in overruling his claim that his counsel was not ineffective for failing to call two Barnes Hospital treating nurses, Catherine Gast and Cathy Johns.

2024Id. at 822 (quoting Barnes v. State, 334 S.W.3d 717, 722 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011)).

2017At best, Polk's testimony would only have provided additional evidence of Larson's potential motive to harm Nolte; it did nothing to directly connect Larson to the corpus delicti. *822 "To establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on an inadequate offer of proof, the Movant must prove that the evidence offered would have been admissible if an adequate offer of proof had been made." Barnes v. State , 334 S.W.3d 717 , 722 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011).

2019See Nettles , 481 S.W.3d at 68 ; Whitley , 408 S.W.3d at 310 (finding the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim not cognizable on direct appeal despite being framed as trial-court error).

2019See Nettles, 481 S.W.3d at 68 ; Whitley, 408 S.W.3d at 310 (finding the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim not cognizable on direct appeal despite being framed as trial-court error).

2006To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a movant must “ ‘show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’ ” Moss v. State, 10 S.W.3d 508, 511 (Mo.banc 2000), quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2002“To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a movant must ‘show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.’ ” Moss v. State, 10 S.W.3d 508, 511 (Mo.banc 2000) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).

2005State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 680 (Mo.banc 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1151 , ... (1999).

2004State v. Hall, 982 S.W.2d 675, 680 (Mo. banc 1998) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)).