Eastburn v. State
400 S.W.3d 770
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Movant Sheena Eastburn was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without probation or parole.
- Direct appeal pending; Movant also pursued post-conviction relief, which the trial court denied after an evidentiary hearing.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and denied post-conviction relief in Eastburn, 950 S.W.2d 595 (Mo.App. S.D.1997).
- In 2010 Movant sought to reopen her post-conviction proceedings, alleging abandonment by counsel and constitutional issues.
- Docket notes show an agreement to reopen on March 1, 2011; State moved to dismiss on September 2, 2011; a hearing was held to determine jurisdiction and scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Movant was abandoned by post-conviction counsel. | Movant asserts abandonment to excuse untimely filing. | State contends no abandonment occurred; timely Rule 29.15 motion filed. | Movant was not abandoned; no basis to address merits of untimely motion. |
| Whether the motion to reopen was proper and within Rule 29.15/75.01. | Movant sought to reopen to pursue merits beyond abandonment. | State maintains no proper basis to reopen; improper as a ‘re-open’ under rules. | The reopening was not authorized as a valid Rule 29.15 motion; filing labeled as reopening was improper. |
| Whether claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel are reviewable. | Movant frames claims as ineffective assistance of counsel. | Ineffective-assistance claims are categorically unreviewable in abandonment context. | Ineffective-assistance claims are not reviewed; abandonment standard applies. |
| Whether the time limits for post-conviction relief were appropriately applied. | Rule 29.15 deadlines should be tolled due to abandonment. | Late filing remains untimely absent abandonment grounds. | Time limits strict; abandonment did not extend relief; final judgment stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. banc 2010) (mandatory time limits for Rule 29.15 motions; abandonment considerations)
- Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (abandonment standards; review of abandonment claims)
- Taylor v. State, 254 S.W.3d 856 (Mo. banc 2008) (abandonment framework and timing considerations)
- Hutchison v. State, 150 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2004) (ineffective-assistance claims are unreviewable in abandonment context)
- Eastburn v. State, 950 S.W.2d 595 (Mo.App. S.D.1997) (affirmed conviction; addressed post-conviction relief under prior posture)