Hart v. State
367 S.W.3d 171
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Hart appeals denial of Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.
- Hart was convicted by plea to one count of second-degree assault and sentenced to 15 years with long-term drug treatment placement.
- Probation followed the sentence; probation violations led to revocation.
- Hart was transported to DOC for treatment in 2002; delays occurred in 2004–2009 due to various mental health evaluations and hearings.
- In 2009, the circuit court revoked probation; Hart timely filed a Rule 24.035 motion in 2009; the motion court denied it.
- The issue on appeal is whether the probation revocation after probation expiration was within the court’s authority and whether the post-conviction motion was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the Rule 24.035 motion | Hart argues untimely filing; timely exceptions not shown | State contends motion should be dismissed as untimely | Untimely; must be dismissed |
| Court authority to revoke probation after expiration | Hart argues lack of authority under § 559.036.6 | State asserts authority existed due to efforts to notify and delays not solely Hart's fault | Motion court erred; review not timely; remand for dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (timeliness controls Rule 24.035 proceedings; waivers not allowed)
- Crabtree v. State, 91 S.W.3d 736 (Mo.App. W.D.2002) (limitations start on initial delivery to DOC; exceptions required)
- Hall v. State, 992 S.W.2d 895 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (timeliness rule applies even if probation later granted)
- Andrews v. State, 282 S.W.3d 372 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (timeliness of post-conviction motion continuing limitations)
- Norfolk v. State, 200 S.W.3d 36 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (Rule 24.035 may be used to challenge probation revocation; alternative remedies exist)