Opinion ID: 1667375
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Object to the Prosecutor's Arguments

Text: Anderson argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to properly object to and preserve for appellate review the prosecutor's arguments during the guilt phase that (1) but for quick police response, the body count would have been higher and (2) to find Anderson not guilty of first-degree murder required the jury to believe the hired mercenaries, defense experts Drs. Lewis and Pincus. Anderson asserts that his conviction and sentences would have been reversed on direct appeal if these comments had been objected to and properly preserved and not subject to plain error review. Anderson previously complained on direct appeal about these comments. This Court noted that they could only be reviewed for plain error and opined: With respect to [the] claims of error . . . for which no objection was offered . . . we find no error of law. Anderson, 79 S.W.3d at 439. The motion court cited the direct appeal decision in rejecting this Rule 29.15 argument, stating that because this Court had determined that no error of law occurred, counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to make a meritless objection. Anderson, however, argues that the finding on direct appeal was that there was no plain error. He cites Deck v. State, 68 S.W.3d 418, 428-29 (Mo. banc 2002), for the proposition that a finding on direct appeal that there was no plain error does not preclude review of the issue in a Rule 29.15 case, because a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel requires a level of prejudice below that required for plain error. The State asserts that this issue is meritless because the holding on direct appeal that there was no error of law differs from a finding that there was no plain error and, therefore, precludes Rule 29.15 review. In support of this argument, the State cites Cole v. State, wherein this Court rejected an argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to four statements made by the prosecutor that this Court had determined on direct appeal to be no error of law. 152 S.W.3d 267, 268-69 (Mo. banc 2004) (citing State v. Cole, 71 S.W.3d 163, 169-70 (Mo. banc 2002)). The State also cites Ringo v. State, in which this Court rejected a Rule 29.15 claim where on direct appeal this Court had declared the claim was no[t] error, plain or otherwise. 120 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Mo. banc 2003) (citing State v. Ringo, 30 S.W.3d 811, 818 (Mo. banc 2000)). Unlike the underlying direct appeal decisions in Cole and Ringo , however, the decision in Anderson's direct appeal details the plain error standard before concluding that there was no error of law. Under these circumstances, it is less clear that the pronouncement that there was no error of law was not equivalent to a statement that there was no plain error. As such, consideration is given to Anderson's claim regarding his counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's comments. To prevail on this claim, Anderson must show that his counsel's objections would have been upheld if made and that the failure to object resulted in a substantial deprivation of his right to a fair trial. State v. Clemons, 946 S.W.2d 206, 228 (Mo. banc 1997). Anderson has failed to meet this burden. So long as the prosecutor stays within the record and its reasonable inferences, the argument is proper. State v. Jones, 384 S.W.2d 554, 560 (Mo.1964). Counsel is not ineffective for failing to make non-meritorious objections. Clemons, 946 S.W.2d at 228. Further, counsel's failure to object during closing argument is generally not error, but is a function of trial strategy. Id. Finally, Anderson has not demonstrated that Strickland prejudice resulted from these two comments, nor is he persuasive that he would have prevailed in his direct appeal had his counsel properly objected to and preserved these arguments for review. Anderson is not entitled to post-conviction relief on this claim.