Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, First Division
JASON MICHAEL JONES, a/k/a JASON MICHAEL HILBURN, Movant-Appellant,
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUTLER COUNTY HONORABLE PAUL MCGHEE
Michael Jones ("Movant") appeals the motion
court's denial of his amended Rule 29.15 motion for
post-conviction relief ("amended motion") following
an evidentiary hearing. As the State correctly argues,
because the claims Movant raises in this appeal were not
included in the amended motion, we must affirm.
found Movant guilty of selling a controlled substance to an
undercover officer, and the trial court sentenced him as a
persistent offender to serve 20 years in the Department of
Corrections. See section 195.211. We affirmed
Movant's conviction on direct appeal in State v.
Jones, 525 S.W.3d 132 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017).
amended motion was filed on March 1, 2018, and it alleged 24
instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate
counsel. The amended motion incorporated all of
Movant's timely-filed pro se claims, and it
added two additional claims. As relevant to this appeal,
claim "(1) 2" alleged that
Jordan Cantoni[ came into the case and me[t] with Movant
for the first time on November 27, 2015, with the trial being
held on December 2, 2015, and handled the trial without
proper preparation to form a solid trial strategy, did not
question witness [sic] properly during the trial, failed to
bring up key evidence fo [sic] crime during cross-examination
of witness, failed to play the second video during trial,
failed to properly represent Movant because of lack of
preparation of case facts . . . put on no defense during
trial . . . came into the case a week prior to trial which
led to poor trial strategy[.]
"(1) 4" made similar allegations as to Theodore
Liszewski. Specifically it claimed that he "failed to
meet with [M]ovant enough to prepare proper defense prior to
trial, . . . failed to put on a defense case during trial,
[and] did not do a proper investigation of case which in turn
led to poor trial strategy[.]"
"(h)" alleged that Movant suffered a
"[m]iscarriage of [j]ustice" in that "the
confidential informant [("CI")] was allowed to
continue working with law enforcement while continuing to
commit unrelated felonies and received immunity from
hearing the testimony of trial counsel and Movant, the motion
court issued its "FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW" that found Movant "did not prove"
any of his claims, including those described above, and it
denied post-conviction relief. This appeal timely followed.
Movant's points suffer from the same fatal defect, we
address them together. Point 1 claims the motion court
clearly erred in denying Movant post-conviction relief
trial counsel  failed to act as reasonably competent
attorneys under the same or similar circumstances by choosing
the unreasonable trial strategy of contesting only
identity when the video of the transaction clearly
showed [Movant]'s face. [Movant] was prejudiced because
his entire defense was staked on the objectively false ...