Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Second Division
JACOB L. RAGLAND, Appellant,
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.
from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis Honorable
John J. Riley
M. HESS, JUDGE.
Ragland appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an
evidentiary hearing. Ragland raises three points on appeal
claiming the motion court erred because his trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) untimely requesting jurors be allowed to
take notes, (2) failing to examine various witnesses
regarding one of the victims, J.F., seeing his mother
("Mother"), engage in sexual intercourse, and (3)
failing to examine various witnesses regarding J.F. watching
pornography. Finding no error, we affirm.
following are the relevant facts presented at trial as set
forth in State v. Ragland, 494 S.W.3d 613, 621 (Mo.
App. E.D. 2016):
stated that Ragland sucked J.F.'s penis with his mouth,
put his penis in J.F.'s mouth, and "humped" or
rubbed J.F.'s anus with his penis. J.F. used anatomical
dolls in his CAC interview to demonstrate this
"humping" and "sucking." J.F. also stated
that Ragland made J.J. and J.F. suck each other's
penises. J.F. said that Ragland showed J.J. "how to do
it" and told J.J. to "hump" J.F. and to
"suck it"; that Ragland made J.F. suck J.J.; and
that Ragland made J.J. suck J.F. J.F. also stated that
something came out of Ragland's "wee-wee" and
that it was "white stuff."
J.J. stated that Ragland made J.J. put his hand on
Ragland's penis, rubbed his penis between J.J.'s
legs, "humped" J.J., placed his hand on J.J.'s
penis, and placed his mouth on J.J.'s penis, and made
J.J. suck his "privacy." J.J. said that something
"white, " "gooey, " and "slimy"
came out of Ragland's "hot dog." J.J. also
stated that Ragland told him he would kill his mother and
sisters if he told anyone.
After the testimony of the first prosecution witness had
concluded, defense counsel requested that the jury be allowed
to take notes during trial. The State objected to defense
counsel's request because the trial had begun and
extensive testimony had been heard by the jury without the
benefit of taking notes. The trial court denied defense
counsel's request, noting its concern "that the
first [w]itness's testimony might not be given equal
weight with the testimony [the jury] would hear if they had
Ragland made a motion for judgment of acquittal at close of
all the evidence. The trial court denied the motion and the
case was submitted to the jury for deliberations.
jury convicted Ragland of six counts of first-degree
statutory sodomy, three counts of first-degree child
molestation, and two counts of use of a child in a sexual
performance. Ragland's convictions were affirmed on
appeal. Id. Ragland untimely filed a Rule 29.15
amended motion with the circuit court requesting
post-conviction relief and an evidentiary hearing. The motion
court accepted the untimely motion pursuant to Sanders v.
State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1992). The motion court
denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. Ragland timely
will provide other relevant facts as needed throughout our
motion court's judgment will be affirmed unless its
findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly
erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). Findings and conclusions are deemed
clearly erroneous only if, after reviewing the entire record,
we are left with the definite and firm impression the ...