Harling v. State
2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1428, 172 S.W.3d 889, 2005 WL 2385936 (2005)
Rule of Law:
For a guilty plea to first-degree robbery under a statute requiring the threat or display of what appears to be a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, a factual basis is sufficient if the defendant’s statements and actions create a reasonable perception in the victim of such a threat, regardless of whether an actual weapon exists.
Facts:
- Robert C. Harling entered the Express Lane convenience store.
- Harling approached the clerk, Teressa Prince, with his hand down the front of his pants, appearing to hold a weapon.
- Harling told Prince, “this was a robbery, would she like to make it a homicide.”
- Prince, feeling threatened, told Harling he could take whatever he wanted if he did not hurt her, and then fled the store to contact the police.
- Police apprehended Harling at the scene.
- Police found lottery tickets, cash, and Prince’s purse on Harling.
- Harling was charged by Felony Information with first-degree robbery for forcibly stealing property and threatening the immediate use of what appeared to be a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert C. Harling was charged by Felony Information with first-degree robbery.
- Harling appeared before the plea court and pleaded guilty to the charge.
- The plea court accepted Harling's guilty plea and sentenced him to seventeen years imprisonment, with the execution of the sentence suspended pending his compliance with probation, which included placement in Talbot House.
- The plea court was notified that Harling violated a term of his probation by being terminated from treatment at Talbot House.
- Harling’s probation was revoked, and his originally imposed sentence was executed.
- Harling filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct judgment and sentence.
- Harling's court-appointed counsel filed an amended Rule 24.035 motion.
- The motion court denied Harling's amended motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding a sufficient factual basis for the conviction.
- Harling (Movant/Appellant) appealed the motion court's denial to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a guilty plea to first-degree robbery have an inadequate factual basis when the defendant did not possess an actual weapon, but made threats and gestures leading the victim to believe he possessed a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument?
Opinions:
Majority - Robert S. Barney
No, a guilty plea to first-degree robbery does not have an inadequate factual basis when the defendant's actions and threats caused the victim to reasonably believe he possessed a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, even if no actual weapon was present. The court affirmed the motion court's denial of Harling's Rule 24.035 motion, finding a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea. The court reasoned that the relevant statute, Section 569.020.1(4), is concerned with the fear generated by that which appears to be a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, not necessarily its actual existence. Citing State v. Archer and State v. Humphrey, the court emphasized that the victim’s perception of a weapon, whether seen or unseen, is sufficient, and the object's actual capability of harm is unimportant. Harling's statement, "this is a robbery, would you like to make it a homicide," coupled with his gesture of having his hand down his pants as if concealing a weapon, clearly indicated a threat of a dangerous instrument, placing the clerk in fear. The case State v. Reed, which Harling cited, was distinguished because the perpetrator in Reed neither stated he had a weapon nor made a gesture indicating possession. The court concluded that the factual basis established at the plea hearing, including Harling's threats and actions, supported the conviction for first-degree robbery, and his guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the interpretation of 'what appears to be a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument' in first-degree robbery statutes, reinforcing that the victim's reasonable perception of a threat, induced by the defendant's words and actions, is paramount. It establishes that the actual presence or recovery of a weapon is not a prerequisite for a sufficient factual basis for a guilty plea. This ruling provides important guidance for trial courts in accepting guilty pleas in such cases and limits the grounds for post-conviction relief based on the absence of a physical weapon when a credible threat was conveyed.
