Caldwell v. State, 556 S.W.3d 65

Movant Cody Caldwell pled guilty to felony second-degree burglary; misdemeanor stealing charge was dismissed. He received a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) with 120 days shock incarceration and five years probation.
The State moved to revoke probation; Movant’s probation was suspended and a capias warrant was issued after he failed to appear for a scheduled hearing in early 2015.
Movant failed to appear multiple times; the case was repeatedly passed for service of the warrant. Over thirteen months elapsed between issuance of the capias and Movant’s next court appearance.
Movant eventually appeared in court on March 2, 2016, admitted violating probation (including leaving for Florida for drug treatment and failing to report), and the court revoked probation and sentenced him to ten years in the Department of Corrections.
Movant filed a timely pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion and an amended motion alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel (erroneous advice about possible prison term upon revocation and failure to object to group plea procedure).
The motion court held an evidentiary hearing, denied relief, and Movant appealed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal under the escape rule because Movant’s extended failure to appear adversely impacted the criminal justice system.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Movant’s post-conviction appeal may proceed despite his failure to appear and issuance of a capias warrant	Caldwell argued the motion court erred in denying his ineffective-assistance claims and that his appeal should proceed	State argued Caldwell’s long absence after issuance of a capias warrant invoked the escape rule, forfeiting appellate rights	Appeal dismissed under the escape rule due to Caldwell’s more-than‑thirteen‑month failure to appear, which adversely impacted the criminal justice system

Nichols v. State, 131 S.W.3d 863 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (explaining the escape rule and its application to post-conviction appeals)
McNeil v. State, 514 S.W.3d 63 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (adverse impact determination and dismissal under escape rule where defendant failed to appear for probation revocation hearings)
Theodoran v. State, 319 S.W.3d 479 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (applying escape rule where movant escaped supervised probation)
Hicks v. State, 824 S.W.2d 132 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992) (escape rule precedent involving failure to appear)
State v. Troupe, 891 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. banc 1995) (holding that delays over eight months necessarily adversely affect the criminal justice system)
Kemper v. State, 129 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (escape resulting in delay and issuance/execution of warrant justified dismissal)
Harvey v. State, 150 S.W.3d 128 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (applying escape rule where escape caused delay and required law enforcement resources)
Wagner v. State, 172 S.W.3d 922 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005) (escape producing sentencing delay and warrant issuance supported dismissal)