Matthews v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that Ecclesiastes Matthews was entitled under Missouri Rule 32.03 to a change of venue to another county, rather than merely to another district within Marion County. Nevertheless, the court concluded that Matthews failed to plead facts showing actual prejudice from counsel's failure to object to the improper venue change, and therefore was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under Rule 29.15. The court also rejected his additional ineffective-assistance claims concerning a surveillance tape, jury selection, and alternative sources of drugs, affirming the motion court's judgment.

Holdings

1. A defendant who timely applies for a Rule 32.03 change of venue in a county having 75,000 or fewer inhabitants is entitled to transfer to another county; transfer between districts within the same county does not satisfy the rule.
2. Matthews was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or post-conviction relief because he failed to plead facts showing that counsel's failure to object caused actual prejudice under Strickland.
3. The motion court properly denied an evidentiary hearing on the surveillance-tape claim because the decision was a trial-strategy choice and Matthews failed to plead facts showing unreasonable performance and prejudice.
4. The motion court properly denied an evidentiary hearing because Matthews failed to plead facts showing prejudice from counsel's failure to challenge jury selection or present alternative-source evidence. His freestanding constitutional jury-selection claims were not cognizable under Rule 29.15 absent exceptional circumstances explaining why they were not raised on direct appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Rule 32.03 required transfer of Matthews's criminal case to another county rather than to another district within Marion County.
2. Whether counsel's failure to object to the improper venue transfer entitled Matthews to an evidentiary hearing or post-conviction relief absent pleaded facts showing actual Strickland prejudice.
3. Whether counsel was ineffective for deciding not to play the surveillance tape.
4. Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the jury-selection process and for failing to present evidence of alternative drug sources.

Disposition

affirmed