Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Second Division
from the Circuit Court of Warren County
Clay Dalton Honorable
Emory ("Movant") appeals from the motion
court's judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion for
post-conviction relief. Movant was convicted, following a
jury trial, of the class C felony of second-degree domestic
assault, in violation of Section 565.073 (RSMo. 2000). Movant
was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. This Court
affirmed his conviction and sentence in State v.
Emory, 430 S.W.3d 914 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). We dismiss
the appeal for lack of final judgment.
was convicted of domestic assault in the second degree after
a jury trial, and the court sentenced him to seven years'
imprisonment. Movant's conviction was affirmed on appeal,
and he timely filed a pro se motion pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 29.15. Therein, Movant asserted in section
C.2.D that Movant's trial counsel ("Trial
Counsel") was ineffective in failing to make an
objection during closing argument and in failing to introduce
letters written by the victim into evidence. Counsel was
appointed and a statement in lieu of an amended
motion was filed stating no potentially meritorious claims
known to counsel or facts in support of Movant's argument
were omitted from the pro se motion.
an evidentiary hearing, the motion court entered a judgment
denying the motion for post-conviction relief. In addressing
section C.2.D, the motion court did not make any mention of
Movant's second claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel regarding the failure to introduce evidence of the
victim's letters. The motion court's summary of
Movant's claim merely noted one of Movant's
contentions for ineffective assistance of counsel: "In
paragraph C.2.D., [Movant] claims Trial Counsel was
ineffective for failing to object during closing argument
when the prosecutor argued that the victim was scared for her
life." The motion court's corresponding analysis in
rejecting section C.2.D exclusively discussed the claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object
during closing argument and did not contain any
acknowledgement of the second claim. After denial of his
motion for post-conviction relief, Movant filed this appeal.
alleges two points on appeal. First, he argues the motion
court erred in denying his motion for post-conviction relief
because the court failed to issue findings of fact and
conclusions of law addressing Movant's claim that Trial
Counsel was ineffective for failing to introduce into
evidence Exhibit 1 - letters to Movant written by the victim.
Movant contends that this Court should dismiss the appeal for
lack of final judgment because the motion court failed to
address every claim in his motion for post-conviction relief.
Movant claims that the motion court erred in denying his
motion for post-conviction relief because Trial Counsel's
failure to introduce Exhibit 1 denied him of his rights to
effective assistance of counsel and due process of the law as
guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, in that the letters would have
shown that the victim was not afraid of Movant and that the
victim's change in story was not a recent fabrication for
Standard of Review
review the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction
relief to determine whether the motion court's findings
and conclusions are clearly erroneous. Forrest v.
State, 290 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Mo. banc 2009). Findings and
conclusions are clearly erroneous if, upon review of the
record, we are left with the definite and firm impression
that a mistake has been made. Gehrke v. State, 280
S.W.3d 54, 56-57 (Mo. banc 2009).
claims the motion court erred in denying his motion for
post-conviction relief because the motion court's
findings of fact and conclusions of law failed to address
both claims for ineffective assistance of counsel asserted in
section C.2.D of his motion. ...