Ott Law Firm

SHAWN WILLIAM BRANTLEY, a/k/a SEAN WILLIAM BRANTLEY, Movant-Appellant vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent

Decision date: April 20, 2012SD30868

Parties & Roles

Judges

Trial Court Judge
Kenneth M

Disposition

Mixed outcome

  • {"type":"reversed","scope":null}
  • {"type":"remanded","scope":null}

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar criminal law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Opinion

1

SHAWN WILLIAM BRANTLEY, a/k/a ) SEAN WILLIAM BRANTLEY, ) ) Movant-Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. SD30868 ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Filed: April 20, 2012 ) Respondent-Respondent. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMDEN COUNTY

Honorable Kenneth M. Hayden, Circuit Judge

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Shawn William Brantley, a/k/a Sean William Brantley ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's denial of his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. 1 Movant claims plea counsel was ineffective in failing to provide him with discovery in time for him to make a knowing and intelligent decision to plead guilty to a single count of a three-count information pursuant to a plea offer that subsequently was withdrawn, and that ineffectiveness prejudiced him when he subsequently waived his right to a trial and pled guilty to two counts of the three-count information pursuant to a

1 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2011), unless otherwise specified.

2 later and less favorable plea offer. Following an evidentiary hearing, the motion court concluded that the prejudice attributable to pleading guilty pursuant to a less favorable plea agreement is not cognizable prejudice under Rule 24.035 and cited our opinion in Beach v. State, 220 S.W.3d 360 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007). On August 2, 2011, this Court issued an opinion in this cause. On April 3, 2012, the Supreme Court of Missouri sustained an application for transfer to that court, and also ordered the cause retransferred to this Court for reconsideration in light of Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012). At the time of this appeal, the United States Supreme Court had not issued its opinion in Frye. In Frye, the Supreme Court held that a constitutional right to counsel includes a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the consideration of plea offers that lapse or are rejected. Because the motion court did not address Movant's claim, we reverse and remand for the motion court to now consider that claim and make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the principles announced in Frye.

__________________________________ Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, Judge

Burrell, P.J., Lynch, J., concur.

Attorney for Appellant -- Craig A. Johnston

Attorneys for Respondent -- Chris Koster, Shaun J. Mackelprang

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,374 words
Read opinion

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,516 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,993 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976

affirmed

Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,670 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

Read opinion