Opinion ID: 6108254
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Records

Text: Collings's third point on appeal claims the motion court clearly erred in overruling his motion because appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise trial court error in excluding the records Dr. Draper relied on in making her conclusions. During the penalty phase, trial counsel attempted to admit various records Dr. Draper used to create her Life Path for Collings and formulate her opinions about his mental development. 10 The trial court excluded the records, sustaining the prosecution's hearsay and relevance objections. Nevertheless, the trial court allowed Dr. Draper to testify she reviewed the documents. Appellate counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that, despite the defense's objection to the trial court's exclusion  of the records being preserved, she did not raise the issue on direct appeal. She lamented being close to the appellate brief word limit after addressing 10 points on appeal and decided against pursuing the issue after some research into the potential legal claim. Collings's appellate counsel also testified she believed, in hindsight, it was a mistake to not argue the issue. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, the movant must establish that counsel failed to raise a claim of error that was so obvious that a competent and effective lawyer would have recognized and asserted it. Williams v. State , 168 S.W.3d 433 , 444 (Mo. banc 2005). There is no duty to raise every possible issue asserted in the motion for new trial on appeal, and no duty to present non-frivolous issues where appellate counsel strategically decides to winnow out arguments in favor of other arguments. Tisius v. State , 519 S.W.3d 413 , 431-32 (Mo. banc 2017). Additionally, the movant must prove, if counsel had raised the claims, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the appeal would have been different. Taylor v. State , 262 S.W.3d 231 , 253 (Mo. banc 2008). As a preliminary matter and in contrast to Collings's appellate counsel's testimony, this issue was not properly preserved for appeal. During the penalty phase, his trial counsel responded to the State's hearsay objection by arguing an expert may rely on hearsay to render her opinion. In his amended motion and on appeal, however, Collings alleged his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to argue the records were independently admissible as business records and court records. Because the argument on appeal was different than the argument at trial, this claim was not properly preserved for appellate review. See State v. Moore , 303 S.W.3d 515 , 523 (Mo. banc 2010). Where an alleged error that was not raised was not preserved, the right to relief due to ineffective assistance of appellate counsel tracks the plain error rule and requires that the error not raised be so substantial as to amount to a manifest injustice or a miscarriage of justice. Anderson v. State , 196 S.W.3d 28 , 36 (Mo. banc 2006). Under plain error review, this Court has the discretion to review unpreserved claims. Rule 30.20. To find a trial court plainly erred, the alleged error must be evident, obvious, and clear and provide substantial grounds for believing a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice occurred. State v. Smith , 522 S.W.3d 221 , 231-32 (Mo. banc 2017). Here, Collings's trial counsel conducted a thorough investigation into possible mitigation evidence and presented expert testimony addressing it. Dr. Draper testified about the relevant and admissible subject matter contained in the records related to Collings's emotional development and history of sexual abuse. As in McLaughlin , the records in this case would have offered duplicative, corroborating evidence for the mitigation expert testimony offered during the penalty phase. See 378 S.W.3d at 352, 354 . It is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to limit cumulative mitigation evidence. State v. Glass , 136 S.W.3d 496 , 518 (Mo. banc 2004) (emphasis added). Accordingly, a defendant does not suffer manifest injustice when a trial court excludes cumulative evidence. See id. at 519 . Because the jury was presented with the relevant information through Dr. Draper's testimony, it was not evident, obvious, and clear error for the trial court to have excluded the related documents that would have provided duplicative evidence.  Collings has failed to show substantial grounds to believe a manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice occurred. Consequently, the motion court did not plainly err in denying this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.