Summary
The Supreme Court of Missouri reviewed Bryan Dickerson’s Rule 29.15 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel following his voluntary manslaughter conviction. The court held that the motion court erred by denying a hearing on the claim concerning possible visible shackling and by failing to address the claim involving evidence of an earlier bar fight, but it affirmed the denial of relief concerning the medical examiner’s use of the term “homicide.” The judgment was reversed in part and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Dickerson was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to visible shackling at trial.
- Whether Dickerson was entitled to post-conviction relief or an evidentiary hearing based on trial counsel's failure to object to the medical examiner's characterization of Jones's death as a homicide.
- Whether the motion court was required to make findings and conclusions on Dickerson's claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge admission of evidence concerning an earlier bar fight.
Holdings
- The absence of any reference to shackling in the trial record does not refute a post-conviction allegation that the defendant was shackled, particularly where counsel filed a pretrial motion addressing shackling. Dickerson was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he was shackled, whether the restraints were visible to the jury, and whether they were justified.
- Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the medical examiner's testimony that Jones's manner of death was homicide, and the motion court properly denied this claim without an evidentiary hearing.
- The motion court was required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on Dickerson's claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge admission of evidence concerning the earlier bar fight. The claim had to be addressed on remand.
Key quotations
“Since the mere absence of any reference to shackling on the record does not prove Dickerson's allegation that he was shackled at trial to be false, the allegation is not "refuted by the record."” (269 S.W.3d at 892)
“At a minimum, a hearing is needed to determine whether shackling in fact took place, whether it was visible to the jury, and whether it was justified.” (269 S.W.3d at 893)
“As these definitions make clear, the word "homicide" connotes neither intentionality nor criminality on the part of any actor.” (269 S.W.3d at 894)
Factual background
After a fight at a bar, Dickerson struck Frederick Jones in the face, causing Jones to fall and suffer head trauma; Jones later died after remaining in a coma and developing pneumonia. At trial, the medical examiner testified that Jones's manner of death was homicide, and the prosecution introduced evidence that Dickerson had engaged in an earlier bar fight that same evening. Before trial, defense counsel filed a motion seeking to prohibit shackling, but the record did not establish whether Dickerson was actually shackled or whether any restraints were visible to the jury.
Procedural history
Dickerson was charged with second-degree murder, convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter, and sentenced as a persistent offender to life imprisonment. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. The motion court denied his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without a hearing, and Dickerson appealed. The Supreme Court of Missouri transferred the case following the court of appeals' opinion, reversed the denial as to the shackling and prior-bar-fight claims, affirmed as to the medical examiner's use of the term homicide, and remanded.
Remand instructions
The motion court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on the shackling claim to determine whether Dickerson was shackled, whether the restraints were visible to the jury, and whether shackling was justified. The motion court must also address the ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claim concerning the admission of evidence of the earlier bar fight and issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on that claim.