Summary
The Supreme Court of Missouri held that plea counsel provided ineffective assistance by affirmatively and erroneously advising Dustin J. Hefley that he was eligible for long-term treatment under section 217.362, despite his statutory ineligibility as a habitual offender. The Court concluded that the mistaken advice affected the voluntariness and intelligence of Hefley’s guilty plea and that he demonstrated prejudice. The judgment overruling his Rule 24.035 motion was reversed and the case was remanded.
Holdings
- A court may sentence an offender to the long-term treatment program only after the Department of Corrections has screened the offender, verified eligibility, and confirmed that space is available. Because Hefley was a habitual offender convicted of an intoxication-related traffic offense, he was statutorily ineligible for the program.
- Plea counsel's affirmative misrepresentation that Hefley was eligible for the long-term treatment program constituted deficient performance, and Hefley established prejudice because, but for the erroneous advice, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on proceeding to trial.
- The fact that Hefley entered an open plea, knew the full sentencing range, and received no guarantee of placement in the treatment program did not preclude postconviction relief based on counsel's affirmative misrepresentation that he was eligible for the program.
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court clearly erred in denying Hefley's Rule 24.035 claim that plea counsel rendered ineffective assistance by affirmatively misrepresenting his eligibility for the section 217.362 long-term treatment program.
- Whether Hefley's guilty plea was involuntary, unknowing, or unintelligent because counsel's erroneous eligibility advice caused him to misunderstand the sentencing consequences of the plea.
- Whether a sentencing court may sentence an offender to the section 217.362 long-term treatment program before the Department of Corrections verifies eligibility and available space.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (24)
- State ex rel. Taylor v. Moore, 136 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Mo. banc 2004)(followed)
- Stuart v. State, 565 S.W.3d 766, 777 (Mo. App. 2019)(followed)
- Williams v. State, 563 S.W.3d 750, 756 (Mo. App. 2018), opinion adopted and reinstated after retransfer (Jan. 15, 2019)(followed)
- Johnson v. State, 580 S.W.3d 895, 900 (Mo. banc 2019)(followed)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694 (1984)(followed)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56, 58 (1985)(followed)
- State v. Roll, 942 S.W.2d 370, 375 (Mo. banc 1997)(followed)
- Dorsey v. State, 115 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Mo. banc 2003)(followed)
- McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 770 (1970)(distinguished)
- Shockley v. State, 579 S.W.3d 881, 892 (Mo. banc 2019)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 24.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…