Conviction of Shockley upheld by Missouri Supreme Court

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Missouri Supreme Court handed down an opinion Tuesday affirming the conviction of a Van Buren man who had sought to set aside his 2009 conviction and death sentence for killing a Missouri State Highway Patrol sergeant.

In an opinion, written by Judge George W. Draper III and joined by five judges, the court found Circuit Judge Kelly Parker did not err in denying relief to Lance Shockley’s various claims raised in his most recent appeal.

Shockley

In that appeal, the 42-year-old had challenged Parker’s July 2017 denial of his request for post-conviction relief.

In denying Shockley’s motion, Parker reportedly found Shockley “failed to meet his burden of proof” on the 17 claims he had asked the court to consider.

Parker made his ruling following an evidentiary hearing in which Shockley claimed ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, as well as violation of his constitutional rights.

An inmate at the Potosi Correctional Center, 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.

Shockley’s alleged motive for killing Graham was a Nov. 26, 2004, fatal crash that left Jeffrey R. Bayless dead. Shockley was suspected of being the driver and fleeing the scene. Graham was investigating the death.

In the opinion, Dapper wrote that Shockley raised four points related to the conduct of one juror who had authored a crime-based, semi-autobiographical book.

At a break during the jury selection process, the juror reportedly approached the bench to inform the judge he failed to mention his son was a Springfield police officer and that he was a published author.

Neither the defense or state reportedly questioned the man, who served as foreperson during Shockley’s guilt phase of his trial, about being an author.

After learning of the book’s contents during the penalty phase of the trial, Shockley’s trial attorneys asked for a mistrial and for the juror to be removed and questioned about the book.

“At the evidentiary hearing, (the juror) testified he did not hold the personal beliefs in the book,” Dapper wrote. “(Shockley) presented no evidence to contradict (his) testimony.

“Hence, (Shockley) cannot demonstrate he was prejudiced by (his attorneys’) failure to question (the juror) about the book.”

Parker, according to the Supreme’s Court opinion, did not err in denying Shockley’s ineffectiveness of counsel claim.

In his appeal, Shockley also argued the juror/author brought copies of his novel with him and shared them with fellow jurors and court personnel despite Judge David Evans having told jurors they were prohibited from having books or movies about crimes during the trial.

The “record,” according to the court’s opinion, supports Parker’s finding that the juror’s conduct “amounted to miscommunication about what was appropriate rather than intentional misconduct.”

Dapper further wrote the decisions regarding the juror made by Shockley’s attorneys were reasonable under all the circumstances, including their decision not to call witnesses in support of their motion for a new trial hearing regarding the alleged juror misconduct.

The record reportedly does not show the other jurors’ “very fleeting exposure at best” to the book had any influence on them, their deliberations or their verdict.

It also was the court’s opinion, Shockley’s attorneys were not ineffective for failing to strike another juror who indicated he would be more inclined to give the death penalty for the murder of a law enforcement officer.

Dapper wrote the record did not show that juror would not consider the entire range of punishment, apply the proper burden of proof or otherwise follow the judge’s instruction.

“(Parker) did not clearly err in denying this claim,” Dapper wrote.

It was the court’s opinion, Shockley’s attorneys also presented “sound trial strategy” for not calling certain witnesses, for not objecting to certain evidence and not objecting to a large police presence during the trial and sentencing.

The opinion also agreed with Parker in that Shockley’s appellate attorneys were not ineffective.

Judge Laura Denvir Stith wrote a dissenting opinion.

Stith disagreed with the majority’s opinion that Shockley’s attorneys were not ineffective for failing to question the juror about his book and failing to call other jurors in support of his motion for a new trail.

According to Stith, the post-conviction hearing demonstrated Shockley’s attorneys had “no valid strategic reason for failing to (question the juror) and for choosing not to question other jurors about when and how they were exposed to his violent novel …

“I would find both failures constituted ineffective assistance that may have affected the outcome of the trial.”

Stith said the court should set aside Shockley’s conviction and death sentence.