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.

Wiklund v. State

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division

April 2, 2019

JAMES W. WIKLUND, Movant-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TANEY COUNTY Honorable Tony W. Williams, Judge

          WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., P.J.

         James W. Wiklund ("Wiklund"), appeals from a judgment of the motion court denying his amended Rule 29.15[1] motion to set aside his convictions of first-degree burglary, first-degree assault, first-degree robbery, armed criminal action, two counts of kidnapping, and tampering with a motor vehicle. Because the motion court's decision to deny relief after an evidentiary hearing was not clearly erroneous, we affirm.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         On the evening of December 28, 2012, Wiklund, and an accomplice, accosted victims in their home. After assaulting one of the victims, and holding the other at knife point, Wiklund and his accomplice stole a vehicle, cash, firearms, jewelry, collector's items, and debit cards with personal identification numbers.

         Following a jury trial, the jury found Wiklund guilty of first-degree burglary, first-degree assault, first-degree robbery, armed criminal action, two counts of kidnapping, and first-degree tampering with a motor vehicle.[2] The trial court sentenced Wiklund-as a prior and persistent offender-to a term of 30 years in prison for each count of burglary, assault, robbery, and both counts of kidnapping. The trial court also sentenced Wiklund to 3 years for armed criminal action, and 10 years for tampering with a motor vehicle. The sentences totaled 163 years, to be served consecutively.

         Wiklund appealed his convictions, and this Court issued its mandate affirming the judgment of the trial court on February 9, 2016. State v. Wiklund, SD33803.

         On June 20, 2016, Wiklund timely filed a Rule 29.15 amended motion.[3] He asserted, in relevant part, that trial counsel was ineffective in "her handling of plea negotiations" in that she failed to directly communicate Wiklund's acceptance of the State's plea offer to the prosecutor before the State withdrew its offer. Specifically, Wiklund asserted that the State's plea offer "called for an open plea to all counts except count 8 which was to be dismissed but that all counts would run concurrently."

         On August 11, 2017, the motion court held an evidentiary hearing.[4] Trial counsel and Wiklund testified.

         Trial counsel testified that initially the State's offer was "life . . . 30 years[, ]"or "one life sentence concurrently[]" due to the many counts. She attempted to negotiate at that time, but the State was firm. She last talked to the prosecutor on the Wednesday before trial, and the offer was still the same. The prosecutor told her to "let [him] know by the end of the week, otherwise, the offer [was] completely off the table."

         Trial counsel was unable to talk to Wiklund on Thursday due to court obligations in another county. She stated that early Friday morning, before 8:00 a.m., she went to the jail and talked to Wiklund about the offer and that "[a]fter talking it over, [they] had decided that it would be in his best interest to take the offer." At approximately 8:00 a.m., she went to the prosecutor's office to communicate the acceptance of the offer, but the prosecutor was not there. She then communicated the acceptance to someone at the front desk, and then "scurried back to [her] office where [her] laptop and cell phone were, and [she] relayed to [the prosecutor] by e-mail [their] acceptance." Her e-mail was sent "a little after 9:00 a.m." She testified she "received a message back from the State saying that the offer was off the table," and the parties proceeded to trial.

         Trial counsel testified they "always had the same offer," that "the offer had always been on the table[, ]" and just the "acceptance was pending" the days before trial. She stated that she and Wiklund had "discussed [the offer] in the past, though [she] could not tell . . . specific dates."

         Wiklund testified that trial counsel met with him on the Friday morning before trial and relayed the State's final offer. He stated he was in the jail when he accepted the offer that Friday morning, and that it was about 8:00 a.m. Wiklund testified that he was told on Saturday that the State had taken the plea offer off the table.

         On September 29, 2017, the motion court denied Wiklund's motion. In relevant part, the motion court found that trial counsel received the State's offer of "concurrent time," that she timely conveyed it to Wiklund, and that "the offer was subsequently pulled by the prosecuting attorney's office prior to acceptance by that office, but after [Wiklund's] acceptance." The motion court denied Wiklund's motion finding that Wiklund was "unable to show prejudice to himself or the result he received in this case." The motion court observed that "Missouri law is clear that the State has the discretion to withdraw a plea offer, even an accepted plea offer, at ...


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.