Case Title: Williams v. State

Citation: 800 S.W.2d 739

Docket Number: 72746

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 1990-12-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
800 S.W.2d 739 (1990)
Robert A. WILLIAMS, Movant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. 72746.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
December 18, 1990.
Janet M. Thompson, Craig Johnston, Columbia, for movant-appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Andrea K. Spillars, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.
BLACKMAR, Chief Justice.
The defendant pleaded guilty to four charges, two of rape and two of forcible sodomy. The trial judge advised him as follows:
The judge carefully questioned the defendant as to whether he understood the consequences of pleading guilty, and ascertained that the plea was voluntary. He then sentenced him to four consecutive tenyear sentences, suspending execution on the last count.
The defendant then proceeded under Rule 24.035, arguing that the trial court misconstrued § 558.026.1, RSMo 1986, reading as follows:
The trial court denied the relief sought. The court of appeals reviewed the apparently conflicting decisions of the Eastern and Western Districts of the Missouri Court of Appeals and transferred the case here. The cases from the Eastern District are consistent with the views expressed by the trial court and the motion court in the present case. Cases from the Western District find ambiguity in the statute, and opt for a "rule of lenity."
We agree that there is ambiguity in the statute. The language makes it clear that sentences for "rape, forcible rape, sodomy, forcible sodomy, or attempt to commit any of the aforesaid" must be run consecutively to "other sentences," which are defined as "multiple sentences of imprisonment... for other offenses committed during or at the same time...." The statute establishes two kinds of offenses for sentencing purposesthe listed offenses and "other offenses." It states clearly what the court must do if the defendant is convicted of an offense in each class. It does not, however, say in explicit language what must be done if there are multiple convictions of those offenses listed. We believe that the ambiguity must be resolved, not so much through a "rule of lenity" as in favor of according the trial court maximum discretion.
The respondent argues that such a construction is illogical, and that the legislature obviously did not intend such an illogical result. It is not for us to say whether the statute is logical or not. What we say is that the statute does not clearly circumscribe the discretion which trial judges usually have in sentencing.
*741 The state argues that the trial judge, before pronouncing sentence, clearly advised the defendant of the sentence he was to receive, and so the defendant has no complaint. We quite agree that there is no basis for allowing the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial judge's remarks, however, indicate that he felt that he had pronounced the minimum sentence. We cannot say that the judge might not have pronounced a less severe sentence if he thought he had discretion to do so. The appropriate remedy is to remand for resentencing.
The defendant also argues that his guilty plea should be vacated because his counsel promised him that he would receive only one ten-year sentence. The trial judge's questioning of the defendant, as set out above, demonstrates that this contention is frivolous.
The judgment denying postconviction relief is reversed. The sentence, but not the conviction, is vacated. The case is remanded with directions to resentence the defendant on his plea of guilty.
ROBERTSON, COVINGTON and HOLSTEIN, JJ., concur.
RENDLEN, J., dissents in separate opinion filed.
HIGGINS and BILLINGS, JJ., dissent and concur in dissenting opinion of RENDLEN, J.
RENDLEN, Judge, dissenting.
Though this is a postconviction proceeding, the majority treats the cause as if on direct appeal from the original criminal trial and mistakenly fails to address the specific claim raised by appellant in his Rule 24.035 motion. Appellant contends "his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to correct the trial judge, who at the close of the hearing on the guilty plea stated that under the law, he was `compelled to run sentences consecutively in these cases.'" Defense counsel was not required to so "correct" the trial judge, who accurately assessed his duty under the law extant at the time of sentencing in February 1986. It cannot be said that counsel was ineffective nor that his service to defendant rendered the plea involuntary.
Appellant was sentenced on his guilty plea February 19, 1986, and at that time, the only Missouri cases construing the applicable statutes on the issue of consecutive sentencing for multiple simultaneous sex offenses were Eastern District cases, including State v. Toney, 680 S.W.2d 268 (Mo.App.1984), and Adams v. State, 688 S.W.2d 401 (Mo.App.1985), which squarely held consecutive sentencing was mandated under § 558.026.1 in such instances. State v. Webb, 737 S.W.2d 197 (Mo.App.1987), the first Western District case construing § 558.026.1 as urged by appellant, was not decided until October 7, 1987. Counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to prophesy reversals of positions and contrary statutory interpretation that may be announced in later years. Indeed, the Western District so held in the case of State v. Laney, 783 S.W.2d 425 (Mo.App. 1989), which is directly apposite to the case at bar in that the appellant, sentenced before Webb was announced as the law in the Western District, claimed counsel was ineffective because § 558.026.1 was erroneously interpreted, and the Laney court correctly affirmed the trial court's denial of the appellant's 24.035 motion.
Further, if we condemn counsel for insufficient clairvoyance, Strickland v. Washington requires that in order to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, not only must counsel's performance be substandard, but appellant must demonstrate that actual prejudice resulted, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), neither of which occurred in this case. Defendant was told that the law mandated consecutive sentences and on that information he pled guilty. Most certainly he would have seized the opportunity to so plead if lighter (concurrent sentences) punishment had been offered and was available under the law. Thus it cannot be said such error, if it were error, worked to his prejudice and rendered his plea involuntary.
*742 Turning to the issue of statutory interpretation as presented here and in the companion case of State v. Burgess, 800 S.W.2d 743 (Mo. banc 1990) No. 72796, from the Eastern District, I would adopt the well-reasoned view of Eastern District and recognize that § 558.026.1 mandates consecutive sentencing. Section 558.026.1 provides the following:
The question posed is whether a sentence on a conviction for a sex offense committed in conjunction with another sex offense must run consecutively to the other sentence. The Western District mistakenly ruled that to give the plain meaning to the phrase "other sentences" (the statute provides that the sentence for the sex offense shall run consecutively "to the other sentences"), those words must refer to offenses other than the sex offenses. State v. Webb, 737 S.W.2d 197, 201 (Mo.App. 1987). The court reasoned from the following hypothetical:
The Eastern District, addressing the issue some three years earlier, persuasively interpreted the statute, stating:
State v. Toney, 680 S.W.2d 268, 273-74 (Mo.App.1984). In the case of Adams v. State, 688 S.W.2d 401, 403 (Mo.App.1985), the court explained further:
This carefully reasoned position is compelling and properly discerns the legislative intent. I find the statute unambiguous on its face; accordingly there is no occasion to employ the maxim that ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the accused, or even in favor of maximum discretion in the trial court.
As the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, I would affirm its ruling and leave intact appellant's consecutive ten-year sentences.