Opinion ID: 1859418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Missouri Courts' Application of Strickland.

Text: While Missouri courts since Strickland have uniformly recognized the Strickland standard for ineffectiveness and prejudice, some cases have overlooked Strickland 's careful admonition that a movant need not prove that an error was outcome-determinative in order to be entitled to post-conviction relief. The origin of this erroneous application of Strickland appears to be in the misinterpretation of Sidebottom . Sidebottom involved the effect of defense counsel's failure to object to an exhibit that made reference to an uncharged rape and burglary. After setting forth the applicable Strickland standard, Sidebottom noted that the error was raised on direct appeal, but was determined not to have resulted in plain error. 781 S.W.2d at 796-97. It then determined that, [o]n the facts of the present case and the law as applied to them, the bases for the Court's finding of no manifest injustice on direct appeal serve now to establish a finding of no prejudice under the Strickland test. Sidebottom, 781 S.W.2d at 796 (emphasis added). As is evident, Sidebottom did not state that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal necessarily equates to a finding of no prejudice under Strickland . It simply held that the facts that formed the bases of its finding of no plain error in that case also formed the bases of the finding of no Strickland prejudice on the post-conviction motion. In so doing, it properly applied the Strickland standard, not the plain error standard, stating,  movant fails to show that, but for trial counsel's failure to object and then to request a mistrial, there was a `reasonable probability that the result would have been different.'  Sidebottom, 781 S.W.2d at 797 (emphasis added). Various opinions have taken this language from Sidebottom , and from two of this Court's later cases, [3] out of context and have incorrectly concluded that [a] finding of no manifest injustice on direct plain error review establishes a finding of no prejudice for purposes of the Strickland test. State v. Williams, 945 S.W.2d 575, 583 (Mo.App. W.D.1997). [4] In so doing, they have lost sight of the difference in the standards of review Strickland teaches are applicable on plain error review as opposed to on post-conviction review. More specifically, while, under Missouri law, plain error can serve as the basis for granting a new trial on direct appeal only if the error was outcome determinative, State v. Armentrout, 8 S.W.3d 99, 110 (Mo. banc 1999), Strickland clearly and explicitly holds that an outcome-determinative test cannot be applied in a post-conviction setting. [5] 466 U.S. at 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Therefore, the two tests are not equivalents. To the extent that the cases relied on by the State and other Missouri cases apply a different standard, they are inconsistent with Strickland and should no longer be followed.