Opinion ID: 1466528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eliciting Evidence of the Uncharged Fourth Robbery was Reasonable Trial Strategy

Text: Vaca contends that defense counsel's decision to enter into evidence a fourth uncharged robbery at K.C. Collectibles was unreasonable strategy that prejudiced both his guilt and sentencing phases. The selection of witnesses and evidence are matters of trial strategy, virtually unchallengeable in an ineffective assistance claim. Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28, 37 (Mo. banc 2006); Williams v. State, 168 S.W.3d 433, 443 (Mo. banc 2005). Reasonable choices of trial strategy, no matter how ill-fated they appear in hindsight, cannot serve as a basis for a claim of ineffective assistance. State v. Johnston, 957 S.W.2d 734, 755 (Mo. banc 1997). Defense counsel's overall theory alleged that the State's witnesses had identified the wrong person and that another assailant had committed all the robberies. The fourth uncharged robbery was a building block to prove this. The police had recovered fingerprints from the fourth robbery location that did not match Vaca's and later determined that the robbery was an isolated incident. Defense counsel's attempted syllogism was that the police were initially correct all four robberies were committed by the same person, and the unmatched fingerprints were physical evidence of Vaca's innocence. In hindsight this strategy failed, but this is not the standard for evaluating defense counsel's effectiveness. Defense counsel was met with overwhelming evidence of Vaca's guilt. Police recovered a revolver from Vaca's apartment that ballistically matched the robbery weapon. Multiple victims were all able to identify Vaca by his distinctive lisp and physical description. The victims also identified Vaca's bicycle as similar to the one ridden by their assailant. A bag of money was recovered from his apartment. In this bag, there was a dollar bill with a brief note regarding one of the robberies in Vaca's handwriting. Vaca initially confessed to detectives that he committed the three robberies. In the face of such compelling evidence, there were few options available for defense counsel. As to the evidence's effect on the sentencing phase, during the Rule 29.15 hearing, defense counsel explicitly testified that in preparing for trial he contemplated strategy's risk. When counsel explicitly weighs the risks and rewards of admitting evidence during the guilt phase that might later be damaging during the sentencing phase, counsel's ultimate decision is one of trial strategy. Vaca is not entitled to post-conviction relief on this point.