White v. State
1997 Mo. App. LEXIS 1885, 954 S.W.2d 703, 1997 WL 679895 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A post-conviction motion seeking an evidentiary hearing for ineffective assistance of counsel or lack of factual basis for a guilty plea may be denied without a hearing if the movant's factual allegations are conclusively refuted by the record of the plea proceedings.
Facts:
- Clifford White approached a car with keys in the ignition and entered it.
- A child was present inside the car when Clifford White entered.
- Clifford White drove the car away from its location without the owner's consent for either the car or the child.
- Clifford White admitted to driving around Kansas City with the girl.
- Clifford White knew that stealing the car was illegal but was unaware he could be charged for a separate kidnapping offense.
- Clifford White stopped the car at one point to look for a restroom for the girl but did not release her.
Procedural Posture:
- Clifford White pleaded guilty to kidnapping and stealing a car in the circuit court (trial court).
- The circuit court entered a judgment convicting Clifford White based on his guilty plea.
- Clifford White filed a Rule 24.035 motion in the circuit court to set aside the judgment.
- The circuit court denied Clifford White's motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- Clifford White appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion 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 defendant who pleads guilty have the right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction motion challenging the factual basis of his plea or alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, when the record of the plea hearing conclusively refutes his factual allegations?
Opinions:
Majority - SPINDEN, Judge
No, a defendant who pleads guilty does not have the right to an evidentiary hearing on a post-conviction motion when the record of the plea hearing conclusively refutes his factual allegations. The court found that White's testimony at the plea hearing established a sufficient factual basis for kidnapping under § 565.110.1, RSMo 1994. White admitted taking the girl from where she was found without consent and confining her in the car, which facilitated his primary purpose of stealing the car. The statute does not require an initial intent to kidnap, but only that a person intended to commit a felony and in the course thereof, took a victim to facilitate the felony or flight. White's act of driving away with the girl in the car, rather than removing her, was reasonably interpreted as facilitating the car theft and hindering the girl from reporting it. Furthermore, the court rejected White's contention that his detaining the girl was merely incidental to stealing the car. Applying the 'new danger' test from State v. Brown, the court concluded that driving away with the girl still inside exposed her to a new danger of injury or death beyond what was present from the car theft itself. Thus, the constituent element of kidnapping was proven. Regarding White's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court found them to be refuted by the record. His claim that his attorney failed to inform him of the need to prove 'purposefulness of intent to kidnap' was meritless, as the court is not required to explain every element so long as the defendant understands the nature of the charge, which White did not allege he misunderstood (State v. Taylor). White's admissions in court, combined with circumstantial evidence (not releasing the girl even when stopping), supported that the state could have proven the necessary intent. His claim that his attorney misled or coerced him into pleading guilty by predicting a sentence was also rejected, as a mere prediction of a sentence does not constitute coercion (Spencer v. State). The plea hearing record showed White understood the range of punishment, asked questions, and explicitly stated his plea was voluntary, without promises or threats, and that he was satisfied with his attorney.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the principle that a defendant's own statements made during a guilty plea colloquy can serve as powerful evidence to defeat subsequent post-conviction claims without the need for an evidentiary hearing. It sets a high bar for movants seeking to withdraw guilty pleas based on alleged factual insufficiency or ineffective assistance, particularly when the plea record is clear. The decision also provides crucial clarification on the 'new danger' test for kidnapping, illustrating how even a seemingly minor movement or confinement can elevate a separate felony to include kidnapping if it creates additional risk for the victim.
