Opinion ID: 1381947
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Motion court's refusal to hear Orthel Wilson's Recantation

Text: In his amended Rule 29.15 motion, Edwards alleged that Wilson recanted his confession, claiming that the police coerced his confession and that Edwards did not hire him to commit the murder. The motion court denied a hearing on this allegation. A movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if (1) he alleges facts that warrant relief, if true; (2) the allegations are not refuted by the record; and (3) the movant was prejudiced by the alleged errors. Franklin v. State, 24 S.W.3d 686, 690 (Mo. banc 2000). Wilson did not testify at trial. The jury did not hear any statements made by Wilson implicating Edwards. The main evidence supporting Edwards' conviction is his own confession. Even if Wilson testified to these facts, they would not warrant relief because they would not negate the basis for guilt. Edwards was not entitled to a hearing on this claim because, even if this new evidence were true, it would not warrant relief because it would not negate the significant evidence supporting Edwards' conviction.