Criminal Law: Post-Conviction Relief – Effectiveness Of Counsel – Death Sentence

(1)Where a defendant, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, argued that the motion court clearly erred in overruling without an evidentiary hearing his claim that his counsel was ineffective for seeking the dismissal of the charges against him because that allowed charges to be refiled resulting in his conviction and death sentence, the trial court was required to dismiss the charges after finding the defendant to be incompetent but could proceed on them at any time after finding him competent, and the state also could raise the issue of defendant’s competency at any time, so the defendant could not show prejudice.

(2)Where a first-degree murder defendant argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress statements made by the defendant to a social worker, under the circumstances the statements were not made during a custodial interrogation, and the motion court did not clearly err in finding that these statements were not obtained in violation of the defendant’s Miranda rights, and counsel was also not ineffective for failing to file a meritless motion regarding suppression of the defendant’s statements to a police officer during an investigation based on the defendant’s filing of a complaint that his newspapers were being stolen

(3)Where a defendant in a first-degree murder case argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request additional brain scans to show his incompetency, the record showed that additional scans would not establish incompetency and would have been cumulative, and counsel’s decisions not to call certain medical experts as witnesses was reasonable trial strategy and counsel was not ineffective for failing to make meritless challenges to statements made by the defendant to an emergency room doctor and an officer or for failing to impeach a witness when the impeachment would not have provided a viable defense.

(4)Where a defendant, who was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, brought various claims that his counsel was ineffective during the penalty phase of his trial, the motion court did not err in overruling the claims because counsel was not ineffective for failing to make meritless motions or for making reasonable strategic decisions.

Judgment is affirmed.

Baumruk v. State (MLW No. 63542/Case No. SC91564 – 34 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Fischer, J.; Teitelman, C.J., Russell, Breckenridge, Stith and Price, JJ., and Mesle, Sp. J., concur. Draper, J., not participating) Appealed from circuit court, St. Charles County, Rauch, J. (William J. Swift, Columbia, for appellant) (Daniel N. McPherson, Jefferson City, for respondent).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)