Court Opinion

ID: 9633065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:32:50.392251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:28.575333
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION
WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Judge.
I respectfully dissent. The motion court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing for the Rule 24.035 motion. The record conclusively shows Movant is entitled *838to no relief because the plea was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective. When the court finds the record “conclusively show[s] that the movant is entitled to no relief, a[n] [evidentiary] hearing shall not be held.” Rule 24.035(h) (emphasis added).
I. The Plea Agreement
Movant argues that his plea agreement was involuntary because he believed that in exchange for his plea to a fourteen year sentence, the State would not oppose institutional treatment. The State’s position is that institutional treatment would not be opposed if recommended in the sentencing assessment report.
Movant relies solely on his counsel’s recollection of the plea agreement, which was based on a memorandum counsel drafted and placed in Movant’s file stating “[n]o opposed 120 intensive treatment program” and a handwritten note to Movant stating “I got you an offer for fourteen (14) years with no opposition to your receiving drug and alcohol treatment.” Neither written document refers to an “if recommended” condition, but the documents’ terms are not necessarily inconsistent with such a condition.
The record conclusively refutes Mov-ant’s claim. The only recorded recitation of the plea agreement is the plea hearing transcript. At that hearing, Movant acknowledged the plea agreement as subject to the “if recommended” condition. The record from the plea hearing states:
THE COURT: Mr. King and Mr. Dudley, what plea bargain agreement do you have in Mr. Roberts’ case?
MR. KING [Assistant Prosecutor]: On Counts I and II, the State will recommend seven years on each count to run consecutive, for a total of fourteen years.
Both sides free to argue following an S.A.R. [sentencing assessment report]. The remaining counts to be dismissed. The State agreed not to oppose I.T.C. [institutional treatment] if it’s recommended.
MR. DUDLEY [Defense Counsel]: That’s correct, Judge.
Q. (By the Court): Do you understand that agreement, Mr. Roberts?
A. [Defendant Roberts] Yes, sir.
Q. Do you have any questions about it at all?
A. (Defendant Roberts): No
Despite the fact this was a group plea, the record clearly shows that when Mov-ant’s plea agreement was discussed, Mov-ant was addressed individually and indicated he understood the terms of the plea agreement. Neither Movant nor his counsel objected to the terms as stated or sought to withdraw the plea agreement at the plea hearing.
At the sentencing hearing, the attorneys and trial judge engaged in a lengthy discussion about the terms of the plea agreement and the fact that institutional treatment was not recommended in the sentencing assessment report. Although counsel noted he “had I.T.C. as part of my deal,” counsel never disputed that it was not conditional upon the sentencing assessment report’s recommendation. The applicable portion of the record from the sentencing hearing states:
THE COURT: For the record the Court calls the case of State of Missouri versus Gary G. Roberts, 06SF-CR00067. The State appears by Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Pat King. The defendant is present in person and with counsel, Mr. Blake Dudley.
This matter is before the Court today for formal sentencing. A sentencing as*839sessment report has been filed herein by the Board of Probation.
Mr. Roberts, have you had a chance to go over your sentencing assessment report?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Is there anything contained in that report that you feel is factually incorrect and you would not wish me to consider here today?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Is that your understanding also, Mr. Dudley?
MR. DUDLEY: There is an error, Judge, on page two of the report, listing the date of 8-25-06. It says “investigation only.” And I believe it’s referring to this case. I’m sorry. It’s just kind of confusing to me, Judge, as to how they listed it. I believe they’re referring to this offense. It’s the last entry.
THE COURT: That’s just in reference to this present case?
MR. DUDLEY: I believe so, sir.
THE COURT: Anything else?
MR. DUDLEY: No, sir.
THE COURT: Let the record reflect that I have reviewed this prior to today, subject to corrections or comments. The report has recommended that probation be denied.
Any comment the State wishes to make on the report itself or disposition?
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor. I am going to recommend that gou sentence Mr. Roberts to seven years on Count I, seven years on Count II, all consecutive, for a total sentence of fourteen years in the Department of Corrections.

I do not see I.T.C. recommended.

MR. DUDLEY: Judge, I had I.T.C. as part of my deal with Mr. Bryant.
MR. KING: I don’t see it recommended though.
MR. DUDLEY: It wasn’t recommended. It was not oppose.
MR. KING: It was not recommended.
MR. DUDLEY: Well, that’s true.
THE COURT: Yes, it’s not a recommendation that was made by the probation office.
MR. KING: I do think there is a note here that indicates that it’s — that this sentence is to run concurrent with any sentence he may have received in Wayne County. And I don’t know if he’s received that sentence or not.
MR. DUDLEY: I would be glad to address and clarify things, Judge.
THE COURT: Well, there was a reference that he was to enter a plea yesterday, I believe, in Wayne County. Did that take place?
MR. DUDLEY: He pled guilty and was sentenced to ten years and was sentenced to 120-day with I.T.C.
THE COURT: Well, there is a difference here, because it was not recommended in this report. I want to make sure. Bottom of page three it does say, “bed date, institutional bed date.”
But they do that. They get the date. But this is not recommended.
MR. DUDLEY: His bed date has been scheduled for about two months already, Judge.
MR. KING: Well, Judge, if you interpret that to mean they are recommending it. And, you know,—
THE COURT: No, I do not, because it would be marked under this second box where it says, “deny probation, consideration for institutional program placement.” I believe this is clearly just a deny probation recommendation.
*840MR. KING: Well, that was the way I saw it, Judge.
THE COURT: But I think they give you a bed date in case I want to do something else. And I just wanted to make sure that that is clear, that you don’t think that that is a recommendation for I.T.C., because it is not.
MR. KING: Well, all I’ll say for the record, Judge, the plea agreement is that we would not oppose it if it is recommended.
THE COURT: And it is not. Anything you wish to say on behalf of the defendant?
MR. DUDLEY: Yes, Your Honor. I would ask the Court to take a close look at the dates on the prior offenses that are listed there, Judge.
My client’s 55, Judge. His history starts in 1970, 1984. He had a prior offense in 1995. He had a misdemeanor offense. And we [are] here today with this offense.
He also pled guilty and has been sentenced in Wayne County to a ten-year sentence in the Department of Corrections. He does have the bed space arranged there.
Judge, the background and note that you saw in the file was that we were trying to arrange a way for Mr. Roberts to be transported from Wayne County yesterday up to here today. And Wayne County, they told him, well here — -we were told that there were no deputies that could get him from Wayne County. The Wayne County court just told Mr. Roberts that he needed to report up here. Otherwise, his chances of the 120-treatment were done.
Judge, if you look at the long history here, my client has never had an opportunity to avail himself of any kind of substance abuse treatment. I don’t think they were really promoting it in these earlier offenses that occurred back in the '80’s and '70’s, in 1970.
Judge, the events that occurred in Wayne County and the events that occurred here in St. Francois County occurred around the same time. My client has not had any substance abuse problems within the last eight to nine months.
His daughter works at Aquinas. In Wayne County they tested him every time before he would report to work. They made it a condition on his bond, Judge.
We would ask that you give him a chance to do the treatment program, as it’s never been provided to him before. And those offenses that we’re talking about in the criminal history portion of the SAR are 25, 80 years old.
THE COURT: Well, this would be his third felony.
MR. DUDLEY: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And as the writer reports, he was revoked on parole on a previous sell of a controlled substance, felony offense.
MR. DUDLEY: That was 22 years ago, Judge.
THE COURT: I don’t care. That’s not good. He had an opportunity and didn’t take advantage of it before. I don’t see any reason why I should give him a chance on probation.
Did you have a plea bargain? Is that what you had indicated — seven and seven consecutive? Is that what you were going to be free to argue for?
MR. DUDLEY: Seven and seven consecutive to each other and then concurrent with his Wayne County case, Judge.
THE COURT: Probation is denied. Mr. Roberts, do you know of any legal *841reason why the Court should not now pronounce sentence upon you?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: As to Count I, it is the sentence, judgment, and order of the Court that the defendant be confined to the State Department of Corrections for a period of seven years for the class C felony, possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine.
As to Count II, it is the sentence, judgment, and order of the Court that the defendant be confined in the State Department of Corrections for a period of seven years for the class C felony, possession of a controlled substance, Diazepam.
The sentence under Count II is to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed under Count I, and to be endured in such place of confinement as is designated by the State Department of Corrections to whom the defendant is ordered committed.
Court orders that this sentence is to be served concurrently with any sentence imposed out of Wayne County, Missouri.
[[Image here]]

EXAMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT by the Court:

Q. State you name for the record, sir.
A. Gary Gene Roberts.
Q. And you are the same Gary Roberts who appeared before me on August 25th, 2006, and pled guilty to these two charges of possession of a controlled substance, class C felonies?
A. Yes.
Q. As a result of those pleas of guilty, you have been sentenced today to seven years on each count to run consecutively to each other but concurrently with your sentence out of Wayne County. Do you understand your sentence?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your attorney has been Mr. Blake Dudley; is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you have sufficient opportunity to discuss this case with him before you entered your pleas of guilty?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did he do everything that you asked him to do prior to your entering your pleas of guilty?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Other than the terms of any plea bargain agreement, did your attorney communicate any threats or promises to you to induce you to enter your pleas of guilty?
A. No.
Q. Are you satisñed with the services rendered to you by Mr. Dudley as your attorney?
A. Yes.
THE COURT: Let the record reflect the Court finds no probable cause of ineffective assistance of counsel exists in this case.
Is there anything else for the record on behalf of the State?
MR. KING: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything else on behalf of the defendant?
MR. DUDLEY: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That’s the order of the Court. Take the defendant into custody. Good luck to you, sir.
(Emphasis added).
The sentencing hearing record clearly shows that institutional treatment and probation were not recommended in the sentencing assessment report; that the trial court judge relied upon the sentencing assessment report and Movant’s past crimi*842nal record in refusing institutional treatment and probation, without argument by the State; and that Movant received two consecutive seven year sentences, concurrent with the Wayne County sentence, as agreed to in the plea agreement.
Movant was questioned individually again at the sentencing hearing. After hearing all of this, he affirmed his plea; affirmed that he understood his sentence; affirmed that he had sufficient opportunity to discuss his case with his counsel; affirmed that his counsel did everything asked of him; and affirmed that he was satisfied with the service of his counsel. Especially significant, Movant answered “no” when asked “other than the terms of any plea bargain agreement did your attorney communicate any threats or promises to you to induce you to enter your pleas of guilty?”
A plain and simple reading of this record conclusively rebuts Movant’s claim that his plea was involuntary.1
II. Effective Assistance of Counsel
An ineffective assistance of counsel claim requires counsel to be deficient and the defendant to be prejudiced. State v. Roll, 942 S.W.2d 870, 374-75 (Mo. banc 1997). Trial strategy is not grounds for ineffective assistance of counsel. Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Mo. banc 2006). For a guilty plea, the claim is “limited to whether counsel’s actions impinged on the movant’s ability to enter a knowing and voluntary plea.” Dorsey v. State, 115 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Mo. banc 2003). “Mistaken beliefs about sentencing affect a defendant’s ability to knowingly enter a guilty plea if the mistake is reasonable and the mistake is based upon a positive representation upon which the movant is entitled to rely.” Id. In Dorsey, this Court found the record refuted the ineffective assistance of counsel claim because movant stated “he understood the plea agreement and was satisfied with counsel’s representation.” Id.
Movant argues his counsel did not object to the State’s misstatement of the plea agreement and did not seek to withdraw the plea agreement. In light of Movant’s own statements on the record, as set out above, there would not be a basis for any such action on the part of counsel.
One further point should be noted. The plea agreement provided a fourteen year sentence for two class C felony drug charges and dismissed four class C felony drug charges. Movant received significant consideration for his plea even if institutional treatment was not included. The decision to accept the terms of the plea agreement as plainly stated in the record was strategic.
III. Conclusion
The record conclusively shows Movant is entitled to no relief because the plea was voluntary and counsel was not ineffective. An evidentiary hearing for the Rule 24.035 motion should not be held. The motion court did not err in denying the evidentia-ry hearing.

. Even if there was a misunderstanding between Movant and the State, Movant was not prejudiced. The decision of the trial court had nothing to do with the State's opposition or lack of opposition to institutional treatment, but was based on the sentencing report and Movant’s prior record.