SHAWN WILLIAM BRANTLEY, a/k/a SEAN WILLIAM BRANTLEY, Movant-Appellant vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Decision date: April 20, 2012SD30868
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- SHAWN WILLIAM BRANTLEY, a/k/a SEAN WILLIAM BRANTLEY, Movant-
- Respondent
- STATE OF MISSOURI·STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-
Judges
- Opinion Author
- Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer
- 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.
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decision to plead guilty to a single count of a three-count information pursuant to a plea offer that subsequently was withdrawn, and that ineffectiveness prejudiced him when he subsequently waived his right to a trial and pled guilty to two counts of the three-count information pursuant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
- Rule 24.035cited
Rule 24.035
Cases
- beach v state 220 sw3d 360cited
Beach v. State, 220 S.W.3d 360
Related Opinions
Other opinions in the same practice area.
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
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.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
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.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
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.
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.