Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanttrialmotionlife imprisonment
hearingtrialtestimonymotionprosecutormotion for new triallife imprisonment

Related Cases

In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation, 910 F.Supp. 696, 1995-2 Trade Cases P 71,226
View Case »
Hayes v. Central States Orthopedic Specialists, Inc., 51 P.3d 562, 2002 OK 30
View Case »
People v. Morales, 25 Cal.4th 34, 18 P.3d 11, 104 Cal.Rptr.2d 582, 01 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1805, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2253
View Case »
Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898
View Case »
Lewis v. United States, 263 A.3d 1049
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Shockley v. State, 579 S.W.3d 881

Facts

Lance Shockley was convicted of first-degree murder for the death of Missouri highway patrolman Sergeant Carl DeWayne Graham, Jr. The jury found the facts necessary to impose a death sentence but could not agree on whether to recommend death or life imprisonment. The circuit court imposed a death sentence after conducting an independent review. Shockley later filed a motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and juror misconduct, which the court ultimately denied.

Lance Shockley (hereinafter, “Movant”) was found guilty by a jury of one count of first-degree murder for the death of Missouri highway patrolman Sergeant Carl DeWayne Graham, Jr. (hereinafter, “Victim”). The jury found the facts required by law to impose a death sentence, but it was unable to agree whether to recommend a sentence of death or life imprisonment.

Issue

Did the trial counsel's actions constitute ineffective assistance, and was there juror misconduct that warranted a new trial?

Did the trial counsel's actions constitute ineffective assistance, and was there juror misconduct that warranted a new trial?

Rule

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced the defense. A juror's fitness is assessed based on their ability to be fair and impartial, and failure to strike an unfit juror can constitute structural error.

To be entitled to post-conviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must show by a preponderance of the evidence his or her trial counsel failed to meet the Strickland test to prove his or her claims.

Analysis

The court found that the trial counsel's decisions were reasonable and strategic, focusing on the juror's relationship with law enforcement rather than his status as a self-published author. The court also determined that the juror's assurances of impartiality were credible and that the defendant failed to prove that the juror's book reflected personal beliefs that would affect his judgment.

The motion court found it was reasonable for trial counsel to focus their attention on Juror 58's relationship with his police officer son and the impact that might have had on his ability to be a fair and impartial juror rather than on Juror 58's participation in a hobby or profession that had no bearing on his suitability as a juror in this particular case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the motion court's judgment, concluding that the trial counsel's performance did not constitute ineffective assistance and that the claims of juror misconduct were without merit.

Affirmed.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the denial of post-conviction relief, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel or juror misconduct.

The Supreme Court, George W. Draper III, J., held that: 1 trial counsel's failure to question juror about his status as self-published author did not constitute ineffective assistance; 2 trial counsel's failure to present witnesses at hearing on motion for new trial did not constitute ineffective assistance; 3 juror did not commit prejudicial misconduct by circulating his self-published book; 4 trial counsel's failure to move to strike juror did not constitute ineffective assistance; 5 trial counsel's failure to call witness as ballistics expert did not constitute ineffective assistance; 6 trial counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor displaying a rifle that was not gun used in shooting as a demonstrative exhibit did not constitute ineffective assistance; 7 trial counsel's failure to impeach prosecution witness's testimony did not constitute ineffective assistance; and 8 counsel's failure to object to victim impact evidence exhibits during penalty phase did not constitute ineffective assistance.

You must be