Dorris v. State
2012 Mo. LEXIS 5
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Movants Dorris, Lopez-McCurdy, and Hill were denied post-conviction relief on the merits because their Rule 29.15/Rule 24.035 motions were filed outside the time limits.
- Rule 29.15 and Rule 24.035 mandate a complete waiver if a movant fails to timely file, and the motion court has no authority to decide on the merits if out of time.
- The State did not raise timeliness below, but the court held timeliness is a jurisdictional/mandatory issue to enforce, not waivable by the State.
- Dorris and Lopez-McCurdy filed their Rule 29.15 motions late (belated by days) after a direct-appeal mandate; the district court ruled they waived relief.
- Hill’s Rule 24.035 motion was filed well outside the 180-day window, the State dropped timeliness objections at the hearing, and the district court held it untimely; Hill was remanded for a timeliness hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion court may hear post-conviction claims when filed out of time | Dorris/Lopez-McCurdy: timely filing mandatory | State: timeliness may be raised by court or on appeal | Motion court has no authority to hear merits if out of time |
| Who must raise timeliness under Rule 29.15/24.035 | Movants rely on strict enforcement of time limits | State argues timeliness can be waived if not raised in motion court | Timeliness must be enforced; movants waived claims; Hill remanded for timeliness hearing |
| Whether the State can waive timeliness by not raising it | State did not raise timeliness; movants relied on that | State cannot waive timeliness since rules impose complete waiver | State cannot waive movant's noncompliance; Hill still remanded to resolve timeliness |
| Relation of post-conviction rules to statutes of limitations | Rules serve finality; timely filing essential | Statutes of limitation may be waived or tolled; different policy | Rules impose complete waiver; not treated as statutes of limitation; finality priority |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 63 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2001) (jurisdictional considerations for post-conviction review)
- J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009) (capability of courts to enforce court rules governing procedure)
- Swofford v. State, 323 S.W.3d 60 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010) (appellate enforcement of timeliness rules; sua sponte raising of timeliness)
- Snyder v. State, 334 S.W.3d 735 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011) (timeliness may be waived if not raised timely; procedural rule distinction)
- Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. Banc 1989) (time limits to avoid delay and promote finality)
- State ex rel. Vee-Jay Contracting Co. v. Neill, 89 S.W.3d 470 (Mo. Banc 2002) (statutory interpretation guidance for limits and intent)
- Bridges v. Stephens, 34 S.W. 555 (Mo. 1896) (older authority cited on waiver/defense principles)