In the Missouri Court of Appeals  Eastern District 

DIVISION FOUR  

MANUEL BURGESS,   ) No. ED99440       )  

Appellant,    ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of                                        ) the City of St. Louis vs.     )       ) Honorable Michael F. Stelzer 

STATE OF MISSOURI,   )       )  Respondent.    ) Filed: February 25, 2014  

Introduction 

Manuel Burgess (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City 

of St. Louis denying without an evidentiary hearing his Rule 24.035 motion for post-

conviction relief. Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim 

that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him that, if he pleaded 

guilty, he would be subject to “lifetime parole supervision with electronic monitoring.”  

We affirm. 

Factual and Procedural Background 

The State charged Movant with four counts of first-degree statutory rape (Count I, 

II, IV, and VI), one count of first-degree statutory sodomy (Count III), one count of first-

degree child molestation (Count V), and one count of incest (Count VII). At the plea 

hearing, the prosecutor announced that, if the case proceeded to trial, the State would 

prove that from October 5, 2002 to October 4, 2009, Movant knowingly engaged in 

sexual intercourse with his biological daughter, D.S., a child less than fourteen years of 

age. The State also intended to present evidence that Defendant “had deviate sexual 

intercourse” with D.S. by placing his mouth on her vagina and “subjected [D.S.]...to 

sexual contact by touching her breasts.” Finally, the State planned to introduce medical 

testimony establishing that both D.S. and Movant had genital herpes.  When the plea 

court asked Movant if he agreed that “the facts as presented[,] if presented to a jury[,] 

could be substantial facts to warrant a conviction in this case?,” Movant responded, “Yes, 

ma’am.”  

The prosecutor announced the following ranges of punishment: five to thirty years 

or life in prison for Counts I through VI; five to fifteen years’ incarceration for Count V; 

and one day to four years incarceration and/or a fine of up to $5,000 for Count VII. 

Movant affirmed his understanding of the ranges of punishment. The prosecutor 

recommended that the court sentence Movant to concurrent terms of fifteen years on 

Counts I through VI and four years on Count VII. Movant verified that he understood the 

State’s recommendation and acknowledged that no one had “made any promises to [him] 

as to what sentence [he] would receive.” 

Prior to announcing Movant’s sentence, the plea court questioned Movant about 

his satisfaction with counsel’s representation. Movant advised that he had sufficient time 

to discuss the State’s recommendation with counsel and no complaints or criticisms about 

his counsel. He further acknowledged that his counsel did not make “any promises to 

[him] regarding [his] sentence or anything else in order to get [him] to plead guilty.” The 

plea court accepted Movant’s guilty plea and sentenced him to concurrent terms of four 

 2

years’ imprisonment for Count VII and fifteen years’ imprisonment on the remaining six 

counts.   

Movant filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, which counsel later 

amended. In his motion, Movant alleged, inter alia, that he did not learn about the 

electronic monitoring requirement until he was in prison and that his counsel was 

ineffective in failing to inform him that, if he entered a guilty plea, he would be subject to 

lifetime supervision by electronic monitoring. The motion court denied Movant’s motion 

without an evidentiary hearing. Movant appeals.  

Standard of Review 

Our review of the motion court’s denial of post-conviction relief is “limited to a 

determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the [motion] court are clearly 

erroneous.” Rule 24.035(k). The motion court’s “judgment is clearly erroneous when an 

appellate court is left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made.” 

McNeal v. State, 412 S.W.3d 886, 889 (Mo. banc 2013) (internal quotation omitted). 

Discussion 

In his sole point on appeal, Movant claims the motion court clearly erred in 

denying his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because the record does 

not refute his allegations that his counsel failed to inform him of the direct consequences 

of his guilty plea. More specifically, Movant alleges that his counsel failed to inform him 

that a guilty plea subjected him to lifetime parole supervision with electronic monitoring. 

Movant further asserts that, had he known about liftetime electronic monitoring, there is a 

reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have proceeded 

to trial. In response, the State asserts that the motion court did not err in denying 

 3

Movant’s Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing because lifetime 

supervision “which applied only after [Movant] was paroled or served his sentence, was a 

collateral consequence of the guilty plea about which neither counsel nor the court was 

constitutionally required to inform [Movant].” 

A movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for post-conviction 

relief only if: (1) he alleges facts, not conclusions, warranting relief; (2) the facts alleged 

raise matters not refuted by the files and record of the movant’s case; and (3) the matters 

complained of resulted in prejudice to the movant. Roberts v. State, 276 S.W.3d 833, 835 

(Mo. banc 2009). “If the court shall determine the motion and the files and records of the 

case conclusively show that the movant is entitled to no relief, a hearing shall not be 

held.” Rule 24.035(h). To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing involving a claim of 

ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant must “allege facts, unrefuted by the record, 

that (1) trial counsel's performance did not conform to the degree of skill, care and 

diligence of a reasonably competent attorney and (2) he was thereby prejudiced.” 

McLaughlin v. State, 378 S.W.3d 328, 352 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). To satisfy the prejudice requirement, a movant must show that “that there is a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and 

would have insisted on going to trial.” Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); Burnett 

v. State, 311 S.W.3d 810, 817 (Mo.App.E.D. 2009).  

“[A] guilty plea must be a voluntary expression of the defendant's choice, and a 

knowing and intelligent act done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances 

and likely consequences.” State v. Roll, 942 S.W.2d 370, 375 (Mo. banc 1997). When a 

defendant enters a guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel is relevant only to the 

 4

extent it affected the voluntariness of the plea. Burnett, 311 S.W.3d at 817. A voluntary 

and intelligent plea “means, inter alia, that the defendant must enter the plea with 

knowledge of the direct consequences of the plea.” Reynolds v. State, 994 S.W.2d 944, 

946 (Mo. banc 1999) (citing Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970)).  “Direct 

consequences are those which definitely, immediately and largely automatically follow 

the entry of a plea of guilty.” Ramsey v. State, 182 S.W.3d 655, 659 (Mo.App.E.D. 

2005).  

“The trial court and counsel have a duty to inform the defendant of the direct 

consequences of pleading guilty, but not the collateral consequences.” Id. Counsel’s 

failure to inform the defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea is not a 

sufficient basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Id. However, counsel’s 

actions may rise to the level of constitutionally ineffective assistance “[w]hen a defendant 

inquires of his trial counsel concerning a collateral consequence, counsel misinforms him 

or her regarding that consequence, and the defendant relies upon the misrepresentation in 

deciding to plead guilty . . . . ” Redeemer v. State, 979 S.W.2d 565, 572 (Mo.App.W.D. 

1998).  

Movant contends that he did not enter his plea knowingly and voluntarily because 

his counsel failed to inform him of direct consequences of his plea, namely the 

requirement of lifetime parole supervision with electronic monitoring. Movant relies on 

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) in support of his argument that the Sixth 

Amendment imposes a duty on plea counsel to inform his or her client of lifetime parole 

 5

supervision with electronic monitoring, which is a mandatory consequence of conviction 

of certain charges pursuant to Section 217.735.1  Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.735.  

In essence, Movant asks this court to expand Padilla’s holding with respect to 

deportation to include advice relating to parole consequences. The Padilla Court focused 

on deportation’s severity as a penalty, its close connection to the criminal process, and 

the fact that it constituted “nearly an automatic result for a broad class of noncitizen 

offenders.” Id. at 365–66. The Court also recognized that “preserving the client’s right to 

remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail 

sentence.”  Id. at 368 (quotation omitted). Because of the “unique nature” of deportation 

as a consequence of a criminal conviction, the Court held that the “collateral versus direct 

distinction is . . . ill suited [sic] to evaluating a Strickland claim concerning the specific 

risk of deportation.”  Id. at 365, 366.  Instead, the Court concluded that, when the 

immigration consequence of a guilty plea “is truly clear . . . the duty to give correct 

advice is equally clear.” Id. at 369. 

Missouri courts have declined to expand Padilla’s reasoning to non-deportation 

consequences of a guilty plea. In Webb v. State, 334 S.W.3d 126, 128–29 (Mo. banc 

2011), the movant alleged that plea counsel misadvised him that he would be required to 

serve only forty percent of his twelve-year sentence when, in fact, he was required to 

serve eight-five percent.  Because the record did not refute the movant’s claim that 

                                                 1 Movant incorrectly cites Section 559.106.1 as the source of the lifetime supervision requirement. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.106.1. As the State points out in its brief, Section 217.735.1 “applies to [sex] offenders who have been granted probation, and to offenders who have been released on parole, conditional release, or upon serving their full sentence without early release.”  Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.735.3.  Section 217.735.4 provides: “A mandatory condition of lifetime supervision of an offender under this section is that the offender be electronically monitored.”  Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.735.4.    

 6

counsel affirmatively misrepresented the percentage of his sentence he would be required 

to serve, the Court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 130-31. 

Importantly, however, the majority did not overturn existing case law holding that parole 

eligibility is a collateral consequence.2 Id. at 129 (citing Reynolds, 994 S.W.2d at 946); 

see also Smith v. State, 353 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Mo.App.E.D. 2011) (“[E]ligibility for parole, 

like other matters relating to parole, is a collateral matter, which does not affect the 

voluntariness of the plea.”); Johnson v. State, 398 S.W.3d 513, 518 (Mo.App.S.D. 2013) 

(“[U]nder existing case law plea counsel has no obligation to advise [the movant] of his 

parole eligibility . . . . ”).  

We also note that our courts have determined that significant consequences of 

guilty pleas in sex offense cases are collateral. Ramsey, 182 S.W.3d at 661 (“[T]he 

registration requirement is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea.”); Morales v. State, 

104 S.W.3d 432, 437 (Mo.App.E.D. 2003) (holding that civil commitment under the 

Sexually Violent Predator statutes was a collateral consequence of a guilty plea).  In 

discussing registration requirements, the court determined in Ramsey, that “[a]lthough 

registration definitely, immediately and largely automatically follows the entry of a guilty 

plea in this case, because it is not punitive, it does not enhance [the movant’s] sentence or 

affect the range of his punishment.”  Ramsey, 182 S.W.3d at 661.  We conclude that this 

reasoning is applicable to parole monitoring.  As with registration, parole monitoring is 

“non-punitive and regulatory,” id., and therefore not a direct consequence of a guilty 

plea.  

                                                 2 The majority noted that neither the trial court nor plea counsel was obligated to inform the defendant of the parole consequences of his guilty plea, but that “misinforming—in contrast to failing to inform—may affect the voluntariness of a defendant's plea.” Webb, 334 S.W.3d at 129. 

 7

The motion court did not clearly err in denying Movant’s Rule 24.035 motion 

without an evidentiary hearing. Because it is a collateral consequence, Movant’s counsel 

was not ineffective in failing to advise him that a guilty plea subjected him to lifetime 

supervision by electronic monitoring. Point denied.    

Conclusion 

The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. 

               Patricia L. Cohen, Judge  Lisa S. Van Amburg, P.J., and  Philip M. Hess, J., concur.  

 8