 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[W] Bailey v. State7/12/2005
is established where the information clearly charges the defendant with all the elements of the crime, the nature of the charge is explained to the defendant and the defendant admits guilt. Ivy v. State, 81 S.W.3d 199, 202 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002).
The indictment charged, and the State's factual basis at the plea hearing clearly established, that Bailey had deliberated on killing a woman who he knew was pregnant. The State relies on the doctrine of transferred intent, which provides that the mental state necessary for a homicide offense exists if the only difference between what actually happened and what the defendant intended to happen is that a different person was killed. See section 565.003.1. In this situation, however, it is not so much that Bailey's mental state when killing the pregnant woman should be transferred to her unborn child. Rather, because he knew that the woman was pregnant and there was no evidence that he intended to kill her and attempt to nevertheless save the unborn child, Bailey's deliberation on and intent to kill the pregnant woman necessarily included deliberation on and intent to kill her unborn child. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that Bailey knew the unborn child would necessarily die as a result of murdering the pregnant woman. See Holcomb, 956 S.W.2d at 294 (rejecting argument that because death of unborn child was result of killing pregnant woman, it could only be second-degree murder). Thus, there was a sufficient factual basis for Bailey's guilty plea to first-degree murder of the unborn child and his guilty plea to the related armed criminal action count.
C. Prejudice
Even if there was no factual basis for the guilty pleas relating to the unborn child, Bailey has never challenged his convictions relating to the pregnant woman. Because he is serving a life sentence without probation or parole on the count relating to the pregnant woman's murder, he cannot demonstrate prejudice relating to his guilty pleas on the other counts. Bailey will be in prison for the rest of his life, and that would be true even if the convictions he challenges in this appeal were vacated.
The motion court did not clearly err by denying Bailey's motion. Point denied.
III. CONCLUSION
The judgment is affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|