Charles K. Moore v. State of Missouri
2015 Mo. LEXIS 28
| Mo. | 2015Background
- In 2010 a jury convicted Charles K. Moore of second-degree assault of a probation/parole officer; he was sentenced as a persistent offender to 15 years. The court of appeals affirmed in 2012.
- Moore timely filed a pro se Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion on June 20, 2012; the court then appointed post-conviction counsel.
- Appointed counsel filed an amended Rule 29.15 motion on September 19, 2012 — beyond the 60-day deadline in Rule 29.15(g) (absent any record of an extension), creating an untimely filing.
- The amended motion alleged two ineffective-assistance claims: (1) counsel withdrew a motion for change of judge against Moore’s wishes; and (2) counsel failed to seek disqualification of the trial judge who had previously prosecuted Moore in an unrelated matter.
- The motion court overruled the amended motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding withdrawal occurred with Moore’s consent and that Moore failed to show prejudice.
- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded because the motion court did not perform the required independent inquiry into whether appointed counsel’s untimely filing amounted to abandonment — a determination that controls whether the amended motion may be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amended Rule 29.15 motion filed after the Rule 29.15(g) deadline creates a presumption of abandonment by appointed counsel | Moore: untimely amended motion raises presumption counsel abandoned him, so court must inquire and may permit late filing | State/Motion court implicitly: treated amended motion on merits; did not invoke untimeliness waiver | Court: Untimely amended motion creates presumption of abandonment; motion court must conduct independent Luleff inquiry before deciding which motion to adjudicate |
| If an independent inquiry is required, what is the remedy? | Moore: if abandonment found, court must permit untimely amended motion | State: (implicit) even if untimely, merits denial is final; no need to remand | Held: If abandonment is found, motion court must permit late filing; if not, court should adjudicate the pro se motion only — remand required to perform inquiry |
| Whether Moore’s amended claims warranted denial on the merits without a hearing | Moore: claims raise ineffective assistance requiring consideration | Motion court/State: trial record refutes claims; Moore consented to withdrawal; no prejudice alleged | Not decided on merits by majority (remand). Dissent: motion court’s merit rulings were not clearly erroneous and remand is pointless |
| Whether appellate courts may remand for abandonment inquiry when amended claims are meritless or already adjudicated | Moore: remand needed because abandonment affects waiver and which motion to decide; some pro se claims were not adjudicated | State/Dissent: if amended claims lack merit or pro se claims were adjudicated, remand is unnecessary and justice requires final disposition | Court: majority remands for inquiry; but prior cases allow appellate courts to avoid remand when late claims clearly lack merit (Pollard, McDaris) — inquiry must be done by motion court here |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2014) (untimely amended motion can signal abandonment by appointed counsel)
- Vogl v. State, 437 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2014) (motion court must undertake independent Luleff inquiry when amended motion is untimely)
- Moore v. State, 934 S.W.2d 289 (Mo. banc 1996) (absence of record of counsel’s attention creates presumption of noncompliance/abandonment)
- Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1991) (if late filing due to counsel inattention, court shall permit filing; if due to movant, court shall not)
- McDaris v. State, 843 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. banc 1992) (no remand for abandonment required if amended claims clearly lack merit)
- Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1991) (establishes presumption and need for inquiry when counsel’s attention to pro se motion is not in the record)
- Stanley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. banc 2014) (mandatory post-conviction filing deadlines; late arguments barred absent abandonment)
- Matthews v. State, 175 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. banc 2005) (failure to obtain a procedural benefit, by itself, does not establish prejudice required under Strickland)
- Williams v. State, 168 S.W.3d 433 (Mo. banc 2005) (standards for denying Rule 29.15 motions without an evidentiary hearing)
- Pollard v. State, 807 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. banc 1991) (remand for abandonment inquiry unnecessary if movant not prejudiced by late filing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)