Hall v. State, 528 S.W.3d 360

Vivian Hall pleaded guilty to one class C felony DWI and was sentenced on November 6, 2012, to seven years in DOC custody.
Hall filed a pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion on June 19, 2013, alleging she was not delivered to DOC until March 5, 2013.
Timeliness is governed by Rule 24.035(b): motions must be filed within 180 days of delivery to DOC if no appeal is taken; the delivery date therefore determines whether Hall’s motion was timely.
At the evidentiary hearing the motion court heard Hall’s motion on the merits but Hall failed to prove her asserted March 5, 2013 delivery date.
The court of appeals vacated and remanded, instructing dismissal as untimely; this Court granted transfer, vacated the motion-court judgment, and remanded for a hearing to determine timeliness in accordance with Dorris.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hall’s Rule 24.035 motion was timely filed	Hall: she was delivered to DOC on March 5, 2013, so her June 19, 2013 motion is within 180 days	State: motion court record lacks proof of March 5 delivery; timeliness not proven at hearing	Court: Hall alleged timeliness but failed to prove it at the evidentiary hearing; remand for determination of timeliness per Dorris
Whether failure of state or court to contest timeliness relieves movant of burden to prove it	Hall: absence of challenge meant she could have introduced evidence later; court/state should have questioned delivery date	State: movant bears burden to plead and prove timeliness regardless of state challenge	Court: movant has burden to both plead and prove timeliness; absence of state challenge does not shift burden
Proper remedy when movant pleads timeliness but fails to prove it at hearing	Hall: judgment on merits should stand or evidence could be considered on appeal	State: dismissal if untimely; judgment on merits was erroneous without proof	Court: follow Dorris — vacate judgment and remand for evidentiary hearing specifically to determine timeliness; then proceed accordingly
Consideration of new evidence tendered on appeal	Hall: tenders evidence now showing March 5 delivery	State: appellate record cannot include evidence not offered at trial	Court: cannot consider evidence not admitted below; expresses no opinion on the tendered materials

Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (movant must both plead and prove timeliness of a Rule 24.035 motion; if not proven, remand for hearing to determine timeliness)