VAN BUREN, Mo. -- A judge issued an order earlier this week denying a motion filed by a Van Buren, Mo., man who had sought to set aside his 2009 conviction and death sentence for gunning down a Missouri State Highway Patrol sergeant.
Circuit Judge Kelly Parker filed his order Monday in Carter County Circuit Court regarding a post-conviction relief motion filed by Lance C. Shockley, 40.
An inmate at the Potosi Correctional Center, Shockley filed his motion in January 2014 on his own behalf seeking to vacate, set aside or correct the judgment and sentence in his case.
In his motion, Shockley claimed ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
Shockley is on death row after being convicted in March 2009 by a Carter County jury of the Class A felony of first-degree murder in connection with the March 20, 2005, death of Sgt. Carl Dewayne Graham Jr.
A 12-year veteran of the Highway Patrol, Graham was found shot to death in the driveway of his Van Buren residence. He was still in uniform, having just completed his shift.
After Shockley filed his motion, the Public Defender's Office subsequently was appointed to represent him, and in April 2014, Jeannie Willibey and Peter Carter, assistant public defenders from Columbia, Mo., filed an amended motion on Shockley's behalf.
Parker heard testimony in October and again in January during an evidentiary hearing on the motion.
Since that time, Parker reviewed Shockley's motion, the court's file, the trial transcript and the Supreme Court's opinion following Shockley's direct appeal (which was denied), as well as the testimony and evidence presented during the evidentiary hearing.
"The court finds (Shockley) has failed to meet his burden of proof, and the court enters this order denying (his) motion," Parker wrote.
The defense's motion had contained 17 claims for the court to consider, some of which were "abandoned" after no evidence was presented, and "therefore denied."
The motion alleged constitutional violations occurred during jury selection and accused Shockley's trial attorneys of failing to ask potential jurors whether they would "draw an adverse inference" if he decided not to testify.
Regarding the jury selection process, and based on the transcript, the court found "the necessary questions to determine the impartiality of the jurors as it related to the death penalty were asked."
Parker said voir dire (jury questioning) in Shockley's case was sufficient according to all legal standards for a death penalty case.
Shockley, Parker said, failed to produce any evidence that a juror who actually served on the jury had some bias, which would have impacted the verdict.
Parker found it was a "reasonable trial strategy" made by Shockley's attorneys to decide not to ask potential jurors about his testifying.
One of his trial attorneys testified at the time of the jury selection process and even during the defense's opening statement, he believed Shockley would testify at the trial.
The motion also accused Shockley's trial attorneys of failing to call witnesses who would have placed him and his grandmother's car in another area of Van Buren, away from Graham's house, at the time of his death.
Trial testimony had alleged Shockley borrowed his grandmother's car, parked it near Graham's house and then walked to the trooper's home, where he waited and killed him.
The court did not find that the testimony of the indicated witnesses "would have provided (Shockley) with an viable alibi defense, and finds instead that it was a reasonable trial strategy ... not to call them to testify at trial."
Shockley's trial attorneys also were accused of being ineffective because they did not impeach a state witness regarding her inconsistent statements about the car.
Failure to impeach the witness, according to Parker, again was a reasonable trial strategy, and "therefore is not a basis for ineffective assistance of counsel."
The motion further claimed Shockley's trial attorneys failed to adequately investigate and challenge the state's ballistics/tool mark evidence.
"It is clear that everyone who represented (Shockley) recognized the significance of the ballistics evidence," Parker wrote.
Shockley's original trial attorneys conducted what Parker described as an "extensive investigation into the evidence," and their files were provided to Shockley's trial attorneys, who "discussed various trial strategies for handling different aspects of the case."
Shockley's attorney, who handled the ballistic and firearms evidence, testified their strategy was developed based on Shockley testifying and admitting ownership of a .243-caliber rifle.
Trial testimony indicated bullet fragments found on Shockley's property and taken from Graham's body were fired from the same weapon.
The fragment reportedly was found to belong in the .22- to .24-caliber class of ammunition, which would fit a .243-caliber rifle.
"(The attorney) wanted to pit the two state's ballistics experts at odds with each other because (they) reached different results," Parker's order said.
There was a disagreement as to whether a Browning BLR in .243 Winchester, as a class, could have fired the bullet fragment, which killed Graham.
During the penalty phase, Shockley's attorneys were accused of being ineffective by failing to call more "mitigation" witnesses to provide a more "complete picture" of him and his life.
Shockley, according to Parker, called several witnesses at his evidentiary hearing to show what their testimony would have been during the mitigation phase of his trial had they been called as witnesses.
"This court heard their testimony and recalls that several of them had stories to share about (Shockley) which were not entirely positive," Parker wrote. " ... Other witnesses ... had limited interaction with (him) as an adult."
Shockley's attorney testified it was decided to stop calling mitigation witnesses during the testimony of their client's grandfather, whose testimony had both men, as well as some of the jurors, in tears.
The motion also claimed Shockley's appellate counsel failed to raise issues in his earlier "direct appeal" to the Missouri Supreme Court.
The court cited case law, which said, counsel has "no duty to raise every possible issue on appeal."