JOSEPH J. SAVICK, )

) Movant-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SD33303 ) Filed: 5-19-15 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent-Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY

Honorable Thomas E. Mountjoy, Circuit Judge

AFFIRMED Joseph Savick (Savick) appeals from an order denyin g his amended Rule 29.15

motion to set aside four convictions and sentences imposed after a jury trial. 1 Because the motion court’s decision to deny relief after an evidentiary hearing was not clearly erroneous, we affirm. Savick was charged by information with committing t he following crimes on September 28, 2006: the class D felony of driving while revoked, in violation of § 302.321 (Count I); the class B felony of driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender

1 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (20 15). All statutory references are to RSMo Cum. Supp. (2006) unless otherwise indi cated.2

in violation of § 577.010 RSMo (2000), § 577.023.1( 2) and § 577.023.5 (Count II); the class C felony of assault on a law enforcement offi cer, in violation of § 565.082 (Count III); and the class D felony of resisting arrest, i n violation of § 575.150 (Count IV). Only Count III charged Savick as a prior and persistent offender. Thereafter, Savick entered into a plea agreement. In exchange for Savick’s plea of guilty to each of the four counts, the prosecuto r agreed to recommend concurrent sentences of four years on the two class D felonies and five years on the other two

counts. 2 At the plea hearing, the prosecutor began to outlin e the factual basis for the pleas by summarizing the evidence that could be presented to prove the charges. Defense counsel Anissa Bluebaum (Bluebaum) immediately inte rrupted and asked if they could

“take a break” so she could talk to Savick. After a recess, Bluebaum informed the court that Savick was withdrawing his plea and wanted a t rial setting. Based upon that announcement, the prosecutor revoked his plea offer . Thereafter, the prosecutor amended the information to allege in Counts I, II and IV th at Savick was a prior and persistent

offender. At trial, a jury found Savick guilty of all four c ounts. At sentencing, Bluebaum noted that the prosecutor had made an offer to reco mmend certain sentences if the charges were resolved by guilty plea. As Bluebaum reminded the court, however, “that was not anything [Savick] would consider because he was not guilty.” Bluebaum also

2 The four-year and five-year terms were within the range of punishment for the class D, C and B felonies originally charged. See § 558.011.1(4) (class D felony, a term not to exceed four years); § 558.011.1(3) (class C felony, a term not to exceed seven years); § 558.011.1(2) (class B felony, a term not less than five years); see also § 558.016.7(3) (enhancing a persistent offender fro m a class C to B felony).3

told the court that, after the trial, Savick had sa id he was glad he did not plead guilty because he had stood up for himself. Savick likewi se addressed the court and said, “I couldn’t plead guilty to the charges I wasn’t guilt y of.” The court sentenced Savick as a persistent offender to concurrent sentences of seve n years for driving while revoked, seven years for resisting arrest, 10 years for assa ult on a law enforcement officer and 10 years for driving while intoxicated. This Court af firmed Savick’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Savick , 347 S.W.3d 147 (Mo. App. 2011). Savick sought post-conviction relief via timely fil ed pro se and amended Rule

29.15 motions. 3 The amended motion alleged that trial counsel had been ineffective for “misadvising [Savick] as to the terms of the origin al plea offer” with respect to “the prior and persistent offender status.” The motion furthe r alleged that, had trial counsel properly advised Savick, he “would have entered his pleas of guilty pursuant to the agreement” and would have been sentenced accordingl y. The motion court conducted an evidentiary hearing o n the motion. Savick and Bluebaum both testified. In Bluebaum’s testimony, she denied that she misadvised Savick about the terms of his plea offer. Bluebaum said Savick backed out of the plea agreement because he believed he was not guilty: He was very adamant throughout the representation t hat he wanted a jury trial. Throughout the course of the representation , I had told Mr. Savick several times that he was offered a very good deal, based on what he was facing or could be facing, but it was one of those situations where my

3 Savick filed his pro se motion on September 2, 2011. Mandate issued in hi s direct appeal on September 6, 2011. Therefore, the pro se motion was filed within the 90-day time period set by Rule 29.15(b). Counsel w as appointed September 13, 2011. After receiving a 30-day extension, appointed couns el filed the amended motion on Monday, December 12, 2011, which was within the 90- day total limit required under Rule 29.15(g). See also Rule 44.01(a).4 review of the evidence and talking with him, he wan ted a trial; he wanted to take his chances at trial. In Savick’s testimony, he admitted that Bluebaum sa id he should take the plea offer and that he decided not to do so. According to him, he was “confused” about the offer because Bluebaum told him “there would not be prior and persistent offender status placed on [him].” Thereafter, the motion court entered its findings o f fact, conclusions of law and order denying relief. The court found Bluebaum’s t estimony “credible.” The motion court believed Bluebaum’s testimony that she counse led Savick to take the offer and that he rejected the offer because he believed “he was i nnocent and wanted to take the case to

trial.” The motion court concluded Savick failed t o establish that: (1) trial counsel provided incompetent advice; and (2) Savick rejecte d the plea offer on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. This appeal fol lowed. Savick bore the burden of proving his allegations. Rule 29.15(i). “A strong presumption exists that trial counsel was effective and an appellant bears a heavy burden of overcoming that presumption by a preponderance o f the evidence.” State v. Tokar , 918 S.W.2d 753, 761 (Mo. banc 1996). Our review is “limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the trial c ourt are clearly erroneous.” Rule 29.15(k); Williams v. State , 168 S.W.3d 433, 439 (Mo. banc 2005). This Court will determine that such clear error exists only if, aft er reviewing the entire record, we are left with “the definite and firm impression that a mista ke has been made.” Williams , 168

S.W.3d at 439. On a claim of ineffective assistanc e of counsel, the motion court is free to believe or disbelieve any evidence, whether contrad icted or undisputed. Vanzandt v.5

State , 212 S.W.3d 228, 231 (Mo. App. 2007). “This Court defers to the motion court on matters of credibility.” Id

. The test for determining whether defense counsel wa s ineffective during plea negotiations is the two-prong test laid out in Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). See Lafler v. Cooper , --- U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012); Missouri v. Frye , --- U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012); Williams v. State , 367 S.W.3d 652, 654 (Mo. App. 2012). “Movant must show first, that his counsel’s performance was deficient, and second, that Movant was prejudiced thereby.” Williams , 367 S.W.3d at 654; see

Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687. 4 Savick could not establish Strickland prejudice unless he first proved there was a reasonable probability, bu t for counsel’s error, that he would have accepted the prosecutor’s plea offer. See Lafler , 132 S.Ct. at 1385; Noland v. State , 413 S.W.3d 684, 684 (Mo. App. 2013); see also Smith v. State , 443 S.W.3d 730, 735-36 (Mo. App. 2014). Savick’s single point contends the motion court cle arly erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief because Bluebaum provided ineffective assistance of counsel “by failing to adequately explain to [him] the terms of the State’s plea offer.” Savick argues that he rejected the plea offer “base d on counsel’s assurance that he would not be sentenced as a prior and persistent offender , and [he] was ultimately sentenced to a total of ten years in prison following his trial.” We find no merit in this argument. Savick failed to prove that he was prejudiced by Bl uebaum’s allegedly inadequate explanation of the plea offer. The motion court di d not believe Savick’s explanation for

4 Savick must satisfy both the performance and prej udice prongs of the Strickland

test to obtain relief. State v. Kinder , 942 S.W.2d 313, 335 (Mo. banc 1996). If either prong is not met, the claim fails. Marschke v. State , 185 S.W.3d 295, 302 (Mo. App. 2006). Consideration of the other prong is un necessary. Id

.6

why he rejected the offer. The motion court believ ed Bluebaum, who testified that Savick rejected the plea offer because he believed he was innocent and wanted a jury trial. Bluebaum’s testimony in this regard is also corroborated by the statements made by Bluebaum and Savick at the sentencing hearing. The motion court simply did not believe the contrary testimony given by Savick at the motio n hearing, and we defer to the court’s determination of credibility. Vanzandt , 212 S.W.3d at 231; see, e.g. , Noland , 413 S.W.3d at 686 (deferring to motion court’s credibility det ermination that movant would not have pled guilty because according to counsel and the tr ial transcript, he did not want to plead but proceed to trial). Therefore, Savick did not p rove that he rejected the plea offer because of Bluebaum’s allegedly inadequate explanat ion of its terms. For all of these reasons, Savick failed to prove th at he was prejudiced as a result of his allegation that he received ineffective assi stance of counsel. Because Savick failed to meet the prejudice prong of the test, we need no t consider the performance prong. See

Marschke v. State , 185 S.W.3d 295, 302 (Mo. App. 2006). Accordingly , the motion court did not clearly err in denying post-convictio n relief to Savick. Point denied. After reviewing the entire record, we do not have a definite and firm impression that a mistake was made. Therefore, the findings a nd conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. See Rule 29.15(k); Williams , 168 S.W.3d at 439. The motion court’s order denying Savick’s amended Rule 29.15 m otion is affirmed.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – OPINION AUTHOR DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. – CONCUR WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., C.J./P.J. – CONCUR