Opinion ID: 2395108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: post-conviction motion

Text: Defendant also filed a motion for post conviction relief which was heard and denied by the trial court. That proceeding has been consolidated with this direct appeal. Defendant asserts numerous instances where counsel was ineffective. Appellate review is limited to determining whether the findings, conclusions and judgment of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j); Mallett v. State, 769 S.W.2d 77, 79 (Mo.banc 1989). Defendant must show the performance of his trial counsel lacked the care and skill of a reasonably competent attorney rendering similar services under the existing conditions, and that defendant was prejudiced by counsel's performance. Sanders v. State, 738 S.W.2d 856, 857 (Mo.banc 1987). Defendant contends counsel was also ineffective because of the failure of counsel to introduce evidence supporting her defense of battered wife syndrome or Conn's absolute control of her. Duress is no defense to capital murder. Section 562.071, RSMo 1986. Defendant also claims ineffective counsel for failing to cross-examine two witnesses concerning their ill feelings for her, failure to call witnesses requested by defendant and limiting her trial testimony. These issues properly fall within trial strategy and cannot be said to have been unreasonable. Defendant also asserts her defense was not adequately prepared, pointing to the failure of counsel to call expert and out of state witnesses and failure to take depositions.  The movant court found trial counsel adequately prepared and fully participated in the defense of defendant. That finding was not clearly erroneous. The failure of counsel to move to suppress evidence obtained after release of defendant's car to unauthorized persons was also cited for counsel's ineffectiveness. This claim fails because defendant did not meet her burden of proving the police violated her specific instructions for releasing the car. Defendant's claim of ineffectiveness due to a failure to move to suppress her prior statements also fails. A motion to suppress this evidence was submitted by defendant's trial counsel but was overruled by the court. In addition, these statements were admissible to rebut defendant's trial testimony. The movant court found no showing of prejudice on defendant's remaining claims: (1) denial of a preliminary hearing and change of venue; (2) delay of trial; (3) failure to poll the jury; and (4) failure to present the entire deposition of Richard Paul Schmitt. Under the two prong test of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the defendant must prove not only that counsel was ineffective but that she was also prejudiced by counsel's performance. The Court finds defendant failed to meet either burden. Judgment affirmed. BLACKMAR, C.J., ROBERTSON, RENDLEN, HIGGINS and COVINGTON, JJ., and NUGENT, Special Judge, concur. HOLSTEIN, J., not participating because not a member of the Court when the case was submitted.