Opinion ID: 2168156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Points without an Evidentiary Hearing

Text: A movant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when: (1) facts, not conclusions, are pleaded that warrant relief; (2) the record does not refute the facts; and (3) movant was prejudiced. Matthews v. State, 175 S.W.3d 110, 113 (Mo. banc 2005). See Rule 29.15(h) Forrest raises three points alleging denial of an evidentiary hearing.
Forrest argues the motion court clearly erred in denying an evidentiary hearing concerning this Court's non-compliance with the proportionality review. Forrest alleges non-compliance with section 565.035.6 and the Court failed to consider all similar cases.
A statutory required proportionality review of a death sentence is performed by this Court on appeal. Section 565.035. The statute requires this Court to refer to similar cases considered and maintain the records of all cases in which the sentence of death or life imprisonment without probation or parole was imposed after May 26, 1977. Section 565.035.5-6. On direct appeal, this Court conducted a proportionality review and found Forrest's sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering the crime, the strength of the evidence, and the defendant. Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 232. The Court specifically found the death penalty was upheld in crimes involving multiple murders and listed four cases in a footnote. Id. at 232 n. 52.
The motion court found Forrest is not entitled to relief because the point is non-meritorious, has no factual support, and is not cognizable.
The argument that this Court has failed to compile a database of death penalty cases has previously been rejected. State v. Smith, 32 S.W.3d 532, 559 (Mo. banc 2000); State v. Whitfield, 837 S.W.2d 503, 515 (Mo. banc 1992). This Court has and will continue to examine and reexamine jury decisions to see if a consensus forms that particular circumstances make the death penalty inappropriate. Whitfield, 837 S.W.2d at 515. Forrest also argues a thorough review would have included similar cases in which the brain-damaged defendant killed multiple people or a law enforcement officer, but still received a life sentence. The argument that all similar cases must be considered has been rejected. In Smith, this Court reiterated its position as: the issue when determining the proportionality of a death sentence is not whether any similar case can be found in which the jury imposed a life sentence, but rather, whether the death sentence is excessive or disproportionate in light of similar cases as a whole. 32 S.W.3d at 559 (internal citations omitted). This Court also has emphasized that a comparison to similar cases cannot be the sole determination in a proportionality review and that individual circumstances, including the specific crime and aggravating and mitigating circumstances, must be considered. State v. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511, 549 (Mo. banc 2003). Missouri allows its prosecutors discretion to forego seeking the death penalty and allows its juries discretion not to impose the death penalty, even in the most egregious cases. This exercise of mercy could not exist if it was then mandated in all other similar cases. By definition, mercy allows more lenient sentences when other sentences are justified. This Court will not abandon a prosecutor's or a jury's unfettered right to exercise mercy to satisfy the defense's one-sided claim for consistency. The motion court did not err. Forrest is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The point is denied.
Forrest argues the motion court clearly erred in denying an evidentiary hearing regarding the State's closing arguments or, in the alternative, trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the closing arguments. Forrest alleges the State's duty arguments were improper.
The State ended the rebuttal of the closing arguments in the guilt and penalty phases by asking the jury to do your duty. In the guilt phase, the State ended the rebuttal with: You know this is murder in the first degree in all three instances. I simply ask that you go do your duty. In the penalty phase, the State ended the rebuttal with: You could send him to prison, he knows all about prison. I suggest to you that's tantamount to doing nothing. It's not enough. Three people are dead. Society is depending upon you. Do your duty. It doesn't have to be easy. It shouldn't be. But it needs doing.
The motion court dismissed the claim without an evidentiary hearing because the arguments were proper and an objection would lack merit.
It is permissible for the State to address in closing arguments the need for strong law enforcement, the prevalence of crime in the community, and that conviction of the defendant is part of the jury's duty to uphold the law and prevent crime. State v. Roberts, 948 S.W.2d 577, 593 (Mo. banc 1997). The State may also urge the jury to consider the effect upon society if the law is not upheld. Id. Here, the State's arguments were proper. The motion court did not err in denying the evidentiary hearing because this is a question of law. Furthermore, trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a non-meritorious objection. See id. The motion court did not err. Forrest is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The point is denied.
Forrest argues the motion court clearly erred in denying an evidentiary hearing on the claim trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State's improper personalization in the opening statement of the penalty phase. Forrest alleges he pleaded facts showing entitlement to relief and he was prejudiced.
In the opening statement of the penalty phase, the State made the following comments: In the case that you will hear and the evidence that we will present or have already presented, I believe that we  that  that the following statutory aggravating circumstances you will find proven beyond a reasonable doubt. With regard to Michael Wells, as you might imagine, one of the statutory aggravating circumstances I think the evidence has shown and will show is that the murder of Michael Wells was committed while the defendant was engaged in the commission of another unlawful homicide, that being of Harriett Smith. I think you will find  it will be my position and that the evidence will show that the aggravating circumstances are proven. Forrest argued in the post-conviction petition that the arguments were objectionable as improper expressions of personal opinion and personal knowledge without evidentiary basis.
The motion court dismissed the claim without an evidentiary hearing because the facts alleged did not entitle Forrest to relief and he was not prejudiced.
The motion court did not err in denying the evidentiary hearing as Forrest's alleged facts do not warrant relief. Admissible evidence may be referred to in an opening statement if a good faith basis exists. White v. State, 939 S.W.2d 887, 902 (Mo. banc 1997). The use of the word I in an argument is not automatically an impermissible personalized argument. State v. Storey, 901 S.W.2d 886, 897 (Mo. banc 1995). A review of the entire opening statement shows the arguments were based on admissible evidence and the State did not improperly personalize the opening statement by using the word I. Forrest has also not shown prejudice resulted from the comments. The motion court did not err. Forrest is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The point is denied.