Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Savick v. State

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, First Division

May 19, 2015

JOSEPH J. SAVICK, Movant-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY. Honorable Thomas E. Mountjoy, Circuit Judge.

For Appellant: Emmett D. Queener of Columbia, MO.

For Respondent: Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Jefferson City, MO.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. -- OPINION AUTHOR. DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. -- CONCUR. WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., C.J./P.J. -- CONCUR.

OPINION

JEFFREY W. BATES, J.

Page 64

Joseph Savick (Savick) appeals from an order denying his amended Rule 29.15 motion to set aside four convictions and sentences imposed after a jury trial.[1] Because the motion court's decision to deny relief after an evidentiary hearing was not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

Savick was charged by information with committing the following crimes on September 28, 2006: the class D felony of driving while revoked, in violation of § 302.321 (Count I); the class B felony of driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender in violation of § 577.010 RSMo (2000), § 577.023.1(2) and § 577.023.5 (Count II); the class C felony of assault on a law enforcement officer, in violation of § 565.082 (Count III); and the class D felony of resisting arrest, in violation of § 575.150 (Count IV). Only Count III charged Savick as a prior and persistent offender.

Thereafter, Savick entered into a plea agreement. In exchange for Savick's plea of guilty to each of the four counts, the prosecutor agreed to recommend concurrent

Page 65

sentences of four years on the two class D felonies and five years on the other two counts.[2]

At the plea hearing, the prosecutor began to outline the factual basis for the pleas by summarizing the evidence that could be presented to prove the charges. Defense counsel Anissa Bluebaum (Bluebaum) immediately interrupted and asked if they could " take a break" so she could talk to Savick. After a recess, Bluebaum informed the court that Savick was withdrawing his plea and wanted a trial setting. Based upon that announcement, the prosecutor revoked his plea offer. Thereafter, the prosecutor amended the information to allege in Counts I, II and IV that Savick was a prior and persistent offender.

At trial, a jury found Savick guilty of all four counts. At sentencing, Bluebaum noted that the prosecutor had made an offer to recommend certain sentences if the charges were resolved by guilty plea. As Bluebaum reminded the court, however, " that was not anything [Savick] would consider because he was not guilty." Bluebaum also told the court that, after the trial, Savick had said he was glad he did not plead guilty because he had stood up for himself. Savick likewise addressed the court and said, " I couldn't plead guilty to the charges I wasn't guilty of." The court sentenced Savick as a persistent offender to concurrent sentences of seven years for driving while revoked, seven years for resisting arrest, 10 years for assault on a law enforcement officer and 10 years for driving while intoxicated. This Court affirmed Savick's convictions and sentences on direct appeal. State v. Savick, 347 S.W.3d 147 (Mo. App. 2011).

Savick sought post-conviction relief via timely filed pro se and amended Rule 29.15 motions.[3] The amended motion alleged that trial counsel had been ineffective for " misadvising [Savick] as to the terms of the original plea offer" with respect to " the prior and persistent offender status." The motion further alleged that, had trial counsel properly advised Savick, he " would have entered his pleas of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.