Bearden v. State, 530 S.W.3d 504

Bearden pleaded guilty to two counts of possession with intent to create a controlled substance and received consecutive seven-year sentences, suspended, with five years probation. He did not appeal.
Probation was revoked in April 2015; the court executed the suspended sentences and Bearden was delivered to the Department of Corrections.
Bearden timely filed a pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion; the court appointed the public defender and transcripts were filed: guilty plea/sentencing transcript on Dec. 18, 2015, and probation revocation transcript on Dec. 29, 2015.
The motion court granted a 30-day extension; Bearden’s amended motion was filed March 30, 2016. The court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing.
The central procedural dispute is whether the amended Rule 24.035 motion was timely under Rule 24.035(g) (60 days after a “complete transcript” of the guilty plea and sentencing is filed and counsel is appointed) and, if untimely, whether appointed counsel abandoned the movant (triggering a remand for an abandonment inquiry).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amended Rule 24.035 motion was timely under Rule 24.035(g)	Bearden: the transcript was not "complete" until the probation revocation transcript was filed (Dec. 29, 2015), so filing March 30, 2016 was timely.	State: "complete transcript" means guilty plea and sentencing only; period began Dec. 18, 2015; with the 30-day extension the amended motion was due March 17, 2016, so March 30 filing was late.	Held: Motion was untimely. The 60-day period began Dec. 18, 2015; probation revocation is not part of sentencing.
Whether a remand for abandonment inquiry was required after an untimely amended motion by appointed counsel	Bearden: (implied) no abandonment inquiry needed because amended motion filed shortly after transcripts.	State/Court: When appointed counsel files an untimely amended motion, the court must remand to determine whether counsel abandoned the movant.	Held: Because the amended motion was untimely and the motion court did not conduct an abandonment inquiry, the judgment was reversed and remanded for that inquiry.

Stanley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. banc 2014) (Rule 24.035(g) deadlines are mandatory)
Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2014) (courts must enforce mandatory time limits even if the State does not raise them)
Gittemeier v. State, 527 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. banc 2017) (determine timeliness before considering merits; abandonment doctrine guidance)
Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015) (remand required when appointed counsel files untimely amended motion to determine abandonment)
McCulley v. State, 486 S.W.2d 419 (Mo. 1972) (probation is not part of sentence)
State ex rel. Poucher v. Vincent, 258 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. banc 2008) (judgment is final when sentence is entered even if execution is suspended)
Taylor v. State, 25 S.W.3d 632 (Mo. App. 2000) (suspended execution leaves conviction and sentence entered)
State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. banc 1994) (probation is not part of sentence)
State v. Fernow, 328 S.W.3d 429 (Mo. App. 2010) (probation operates independently of the sentence)
State ex rel. Manion v. Elliott, 305 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. banc 2010) (probation revocation is civil and not a continuation of criminal sentencing)
Hewitt v. State, 518 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. App. 2017) (Rule 29.07(b)(4) notice obligation arises only if defendant already has a right to proceed under Rule 24.035)