Daniel T. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

DANIEL T. WILLIAMS, ) ) No. ED113233 Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Filed: February 10, 2026 Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS The Honorable Bryan L. Hettenbach, Judge Introduction Appellant Daniel Williams appeals the motion court's judgment denying his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. 1 In one point on appeal, Appellant argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to investigate his mental state. Because Appellant has not alleged how additional information about his mental state would have aided his defense or satisfied his burden in showing prejudice, we affirm the motion court's judgment denying post-conviction relief.

1 All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2019).

2

Factual and Procedural Background On November 4, 2017, Victim and two others were filming a music video on the street in front of a vacant house. Victim was holding a gun. After they finished filming, Appellant approached the group carrying a gun. Appellant asked if he could be in the video and the group agreed. After filming, Victim asked a question that Appellant perceived as an insult and Appellant responded by shooting Victim. As soon as Appellant shot Victim the two other witnesses ran away, later testifying that they felt bullets "whistling" past. Victim died from his wounds. One witness returned to the scene and spoke with police and gave them the memory cards from the camera the group was using to make the music video. The same witness later identified Appellant in a photo lineup. Appellant called his counselor later that day to say he thought he had killed someone. He told his counselor he was approached by a man while on his porch and believed the man was going to shoot him, prompting him to shoot first. Appellant then called his probation officer, leaving a voicemail saying he had stepped off his front porch when he shot Victim. Appellant also contacted an attorney, who arranged for Appellant to surrender to the police and submit a letter in which he stated that he was walking to the store when three men got out of a car and surrounded him, causing Appellant to feel threatened and shoot Victim. The attorney turned Appellant's gun over to the police. The bullets from the gun matched the bullets recovered during Victim's autopsy. Appellant was charged, among other things, with first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and two accompanying charges of armed criminal action. After a jury trial on April 11, 2019, Appellant was found guilty of the lesser included offense of second-degree assault and armed criminal action, and the jury was hung as to first-degree murder and the accompanying armed

3

criminal action charge. At the second jury trial, Appellant was acquitted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action. Appellant was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to consecutive terms of seven years for assault and life imprisonment for armed criminal action. Appellant's convictions were affirmed on appeal in State v. Williams, 613 S.W.3d 835 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). Post-conviction counsel timely filed an amended motion for post-conviction relief on June 18, 2021. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court denied Appellant's claims. This appeal follows. Standard of Review Appellate review of a judgment denying a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief is limited to whether the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. Shockley v. State, 579 S.W.3d 881, 892 (Mo. banc 2019); Rule 29.15(k). "Findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, the court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made." Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292, 294 (Mo. banc 2014) (quoting Davis v. State, 486 S.W.3d 898, 905 (Mo. banc 2016)). This Court defers to "the motion court's superior opportunity to judge the credibility of witnesses." Flaherty v. State, 694 S.W.3d 413, 419 (Mo. banc 2024). For an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the Strickland standard applies. McFadden v. State, 619 S.W.3d 434, 445 (Mo. banc 2020). "Under Strickland, a movant must demonstrate that: (1) his or her counsel failed to exercise the level of skill and diligence that a reasonably competent counsel would in a similar situation, and (2) he or she was prejudiced by that failure." Johnson v. State, 406 S.W.3d 892, 898-99 (Mo. banc 2013). Both prongs of the test must be shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Strong v. State, 263 S.W.3d 636, 642 (Mo. banc 2008). To satisfy the first prong, the movant must overcome "a strong presumption that counsel's

4

conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 (1984). The second prong, prejudice, is satisfied when "there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Johnson, 406 S.W.3d at 899 (internal quotations omitted). "A reasonable probability exists when there is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Tisius v. State, 519 S.W.3d 413, 420 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting McLaughlin v. State, 378 S.W.3d 328, 337 (Mo. banc 2012)). Analysis In his sole point on appeal, Appellant alleges that the motion court erred in denying his amended motion after an evidentiary hearing because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate whether Appellant had a mental disease or defect that would affect his culpability. Appellant argues that, but for trial counsel's unreasonable actions, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of the trial would have been different. To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on inadequate investigation, "a movant must allege (1) what information plea counsel failed to discover; (2) that a reasonable investigation or preparation would have resulted in the discovery of such information, and (3) that the information would have aided or improved their defense." Dunn v. State, 689 S.W.3d 822, 825 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024). Appellant alleges that trial counsel failed to investigate whether Appellant had a mental disease or defect, thereby failing to pursue information that could have indicated that Appellant had "a slew of serious mental health issues" and diminished capacity. However, the motion court found that there was "no evidence presented that should have caused [trial counsel] to initiate an independent investigation of [Appellant's] mental state. Additionally, [Appellant] presented no evidence of what a mental health examination would have found."

5

Evidence about whether a defendant has a "mental disease or defect" is admissible in a criminal trial to "prove that the defendant did or did not have a state of mind which is an element of the offense." Section 552.015.2(8). 2 This is commonly referred to as a diminished capacity defense. State v. Walkup, 220 S.W.3d 748, 754 (Mo. banc 2007). "Evidence of diminished capacity is intended simply to negate an element of the state's case—a culpable mental state— which is the state's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt." Davis v. State, 486 S.W.3d 898, 912 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting Walkup, 220 S.W.3d at 755). When a diminished capacity defense is used, "the defendant remains fully responsible for his conduct but can be found guilty of only those offenses, if any, of which he is mentally capable." State v. Walther, 581 S.W.3d 702, 707– 08 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (internal quotations omitted). "The right to effective assistance of counsel does not require trial counsel to devote his or her limited resources to an investigation of the defendant's mental health in every case." Harris v. State, 666 S.W.3d 263, 267 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). To succeed on a claim for failure to investigate mental condition, "sufficient facts must be shown that indicate a questionable mental condition that should have caused counsel to investigate the defendant's mental state." Nelson v. State, 372 S.W.3d 892, 895 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). Appellant must also "allege and prove the information a reasonable investigation would have revealed and how that information would have aided his defense." Harris, 666 S.W.3d at 267. Although Appellant has presented evidence that trial counsel knew he was taking medication for bi-polar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, he has not explained how this information would have aided his defense. He has not alleged how these diagnoses related to the ability to form the requisite mental state for the charged offenses. Appellant's argument that trial

2 All section references are to RSMo. (2017).

6

counsel failed to investigate his mental state is incomplete without any argument or evidence relating to what a further investigation would have found or how it would have aided his defense. Dunn, 689 S.W.3d at 825. Because of this defect, the motion court found that this claim was speculative. We agree. Furthermore, trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that she did not think a diminished capacity defense was compatible with a self-defense defense and that it would not be "wise" to pursue a diminished capacity defense. " The choice of one reasonable trial strategy over another is not ineffective assistance." Strong, 263 S.W.3d at 642. A diminished capacity defense "is contrary to a claim of self-defense." Stuckey v. State, 682 S.W.3d 75, 84 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023). In light of the fact that trial counsel pursued a defense strategy incompatible with a diminished capacity defense, trial counsel's brief consideration of—and ultimate decision to not further investigate or pursue—a diminished-capacity defense is reasonable trial strategy. See Shaddox v. State, 712 S.W.3d 850, 858 (Mo. App. S.D. 2025); see also Davis, 486 S.W.3d at 912 (finding that trial counsel was not ineffective for pursuing a different trial strategy instead of a diminished capacity defense). The motion court found trial counsel's testimony credible that she did not think pursuing a diminished capacity defense was a good idea, and this Court defers to the motion court's superior ability to judge the credibility of witnesses. Flaherty, 694 S.W.3d at

Finally, Appellant has failed to show that he was prejudiced, arguing only that "counsel's deficient performance prejudiced him." Appellant does not provide any analysis or evidence to support this proposition. "Conclusory post-conviction allegations of prejudice without specific evidence showing how the alleged deficient performance would have led to a likely different

7

result are insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel." Butler v. State, 557 S.W.3d 427, 437 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018). Thus, the motion court did not clearly err. Point I is denied. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the motion court denying post-conviction relief is affirmed.

RENÉE D. HARDIN-TAMMONS, PRESIDING JUDGE

Angela T. Quigless, J., and Thomas C. Clark II, J., concur.