A criminal conviction can affect your freedom, family, employment, and future. If legal errors contributed to your conviction or sentence, the conclusion of your trial or guilty-plea proceeding may not end your ability to seek relief.
Missouri law provides several ways to challenge a conviction, but each remedy has distinct requirements and strict filing deadlines. The appropriate procedure depends on how you were convicted, whether you appealed, the type of error involved, and when you discovered the supporting facts.
At Law & Schriener, LLC, we review convictions and sentences to identify potential constitutional violations and determine which legal remedies may remain available. From our office in Clayton, Missouri, we represent clients in St. Louis and throughout the state. Contact us today to discuss your case and learn how we may be able to help.
Challenging a conviction requires more than disagreeing with the verdict or sentence. You must identify a recognized legal ground for relief and raise it through the appropriate procedure.
A direct appeal generally addresses errors contained in the trial-court record. A Missouri post-conviction motion may address matters such as ineffective assistance of counsel that often require evidence outside that record. State or federal habeas corpus proceedings may be available in limited circumstances, but they are not substitutes for an appeal or a timely post-conviction motion.
Potential grounds for relief include:
Ineffective assistance of counsel: Your attorney’s performance may have fallen below constitutional standards and prejudiced your case.
Suppression of favorable evidence: The prosecution may have withheld material evidence favorable to the defense.
Newly discovered evidence: Evidence discovered after the proceeding may support relief through a remedy available under the circumstances.
An unlawful conviction or sentence: The conviction or sentence may violate the United States Constitution, Missouri law, or other applicable controlling legal authority.
The existence of an error does not necessarily establish a right to relief. Courts also consider whether the issue was preserved, raised on appeal, asserted on time, or procedurally defaulted.
Selecting the correct remedy is a critical part of challenging a conviction. In Missouri, Rule 29.15 generally governs claims brought after a conviction following trial, while Rule 24.035 generally applies after a guilty plea. Both rules impose strict deadlines that depend on the procedural history of the case.
Other possible remedies may include a motion for a new trial, a motion for post-conviction DNA testing, a Missouri habeas corpus petition, or a federal habeas corpus petition. Federal habeas proceedings generally require you to exhaust available state remedies and comply with a separate federal filing period.
Missing a deadline or using the wrong procedure can prevent a court from reaching the merits of an otherwise substantial claim. You should therefore have the judgment, sentencing records, appellate mandate, prior motions, and relevant filing dates reviewed as soon as possible.
Ineffective assistance of counsel is a common basis for post-conviction relief, but dissatisfaction with an attorney’s strategy or the outcome is not enough. You generally must establish that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance caused prejudice.
Prejudice ordinarily requires a reasonable probability that, without counsel’s errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. This does not require proof that a different result was more likely than not, but the probability must be sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.
Possible examples include:
Failure to investigate: Counsel may have unreasonably failed to interview a material witness, investigate an alibi, obtain relevant records, or examine available physical evidence.
Failure to communicate a plea offer: Counsel may have failed to tell you about a formal plea offer before it expired. Additional proof is required to establish that the failure caused prejudice.
Failure to present available evidence: Counsel may have unreasonably omitted material evidence at trial or sentencing.
Incorrect legal advice concerning a plea: Materially inaccurate advice may affect whether a guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
The court evaluates counsel’s conduct based on the circumstances at the time. Strategic decisions generally receive substantial deference, so your claim must identify specific acts or omissions and explain how they affected the proceeding.
Evidence discovered after a conviction may be important, but it does not automatically entitle you to a new trial or other relief. The correct remedy depends on the nature of the evidence, when it became available, whether it could have been discovered earlier, and how it relates to guilt or punishment.
New evidence may include previously unavailable records, forensic results, credible witness information, or evidence identifying another possible perpetrator. A witness’s recantation must be evaluated carefully because courts frequently scrutinize its credibility and the circumstances surrounding it.
Missouri law imposes specific requirements for post-conviction DNA testing. To obtain testing, you must satisfy statutory conditions concerning the evidence’s existence and preservation, any previous testing, whether identity was at issue, and the probability that favorable results would have affected the conviction.
Preserving physical evidence and documenting how new information was discovered can be important. We can assess whether the evidence supports a recognized claim and which filing procedure applies.
Prosecutors must comply with constitutional disclosure requirements and other rules intended to protect your right to a fair proceeding. Misconduct may support relief when it violates your rights and satisfies the applicable materiality or prejudice standard.
Issues may include:
Suppression of favorable evidence: Under Brady v. Maryland, the state’s suppression of material evidence favorable to the defense may violate due process regardless of whether the suppression was intentional.
False or misleading testimony: Due process concerns may arise when the prosecution knowingly presents false testimony or fails to correct testimony it knows is false.
Improper arguments: Statements that misstate evidence, appeal to improper prejudice, or otherwise exceed permissible advocacy may support a claim when the applicable preservation and prejudice requirements are met.
Undisclosed benefits or agreements: Information concerning promises, benefits, or agreements involving a prosecution witness may constitute material impeachment evidence.
These claims require a careful review of the trial record, discovery, witness testimony, and any information obtained after the conviction. The available procedure may also depend on when the violation was discovered and whether it could have been raised earlier.
Post-conviction proceedings involve strict deadlines, procedural limitations, and demanding standards of proof. No result is guaranteed, but a prompt review can determine whether you have a potentially viable claim and help preserve any remedies that remain available.
At Law & Schriener, LLC, we examine transcripts, court filings, discovery, plea records, appellate decisions, and newly obtained evidence. We then identify the applicable procedure and explain the requirements, risks, and possible outcomes. From our office in Clayton, Missouri, we represent clients in St. Louis and throughout the state. Contact our firm today to schedule a consultation.
Being convicted of a crime you didn't commit or receiving an unjust sentence shatters your life in an instant. The emotional toll of a conviction stretches far beyond the courtroom, deeply impacting your family, your future, and your fundamental freedom.
Wrongful convictions can change every aspect of a person’s life. Years may pass before new evidence comes to light, leaving individuals and families coping with emotional, financial, and personal hardship.
