PELC v. STATE (2021)

Order

Scott Pelc appeals, following an evidentiary hearing, the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Pelc raises five points on appeal. In his first two points, Pelc argues that the motion court erred in finding that he was not prejudiced by trial counsel's failure (1) to get two photographs of Pelc's penis admitted at trial and to present testimony regarding the condition of his penis at the time of the alleged offenses (Point I) and (2) to advise Pelc of the necessity of his testimony to lay a proper foundation for admission of the photographs (Point II). For Points III and IV, Pelc alleges that the motion court erred when it found that he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his right to testify because the trial court failed to properly (1) advise him of his right to testify (Point III) and (2) ensure that Pelc's waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent by calling a recess so Pelc could confer with trial counsel before waiving that right (Point IV). Finally, in Point V, Pelc alleges that the motion court erred in finding that he was not prejudiced by any alleged failure to obtain a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of his right to testify. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Per Curiam: