NATHAN HILLIARD, Movant- Missouri Cases

Nathan Hilliard appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion, which claimed ineffective assistance of counsel. Hilliard argued that the trial court imposed a vindictive sentence, punishing him for exercising his right to a trial by sentencing him to a longer term after conviction than he had received in a prior plea agreement. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that a claim of vindictive sentencing is generally considered trial court error and does not fall under the "rare and exceptional circumstances" required for such an error to be cognizable in a Rule 29.15 motion.