Jack v. State, 354 S.W.3d 659

Jack pled guilty to two counts of first-degree sodomy on June 20, 2008 under a plea agreement; two counts were dismissed and he received concurrent 15-year terms and was delivered to the DOC on June 25, 2008.
On December 21, 2009, Jack moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 29.07; motion denied January 12, 2010; no after-trial motion filed.
On February 11, 2010, Jack filed a pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion; denied as untimely February 16, 2010; no after-trial motion filed.
On March 18, 2010, Jack attempted to file a single pro se notice of appeal challenging both rulings; notice lacked docket fee or pauperis form.
Trial court granted pauperis on April 22, 2010 after Jack filed; notice of appeal filed that day.
The State moves to dismiss as untimely; the court agrees and dismisses the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Rule 29.07(d) appeals and Rule 24.035 appeals are reviewed for timeliness under civil-procedure rules governing final judgments and notices of appeal.
Final judgments for Rule 29.07(d) and Rule 24.035 motions become final at specific times, triggering strict filing deadlines under Rules 81.04 and 81.05.
Because no timely notices of appeal were filed for either denial, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and dismisses each aspect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal from Rule 29.07(d) denial	Jack argues timely appeal after final denial	State argues untimely appeal under Rule 81.04/81.05	Appeal from Rule 29.07(d) denial untimely; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Timeliness of appeal from Rule 24.035 denial	Jack argues timely appeal after final denial	State argues untimely appeal under Rule 81.04/81.05	Appeal from Rule 24.035 denial untimely; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Spicer v. Donald N. Spicer Revocable Living Trust, 336 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. banc 2011) (timeliness framework for post-conviction appeals)
State v. Larson, 79 S.W.3d 891 (Mo. banc 2002) (post-conviction motions treated as separate civil proceedings)
State v. Tayon, 117 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. App. 2003) (timeliness of notices of appeal in post-conviction contexts)
Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2002) (finality and appeal timing after post-conviction rulings)
State v. Johnson, 172 S.W.3d 900 (Mo. App. 2005) (timeliness rules for post-conviction appeals)
Hamilton v. State, 865 S.W.2d 374 (Mo. App. 1993) (general timeliness principles for appellate review of post-conviction rulings)
Thomas, 96 S.W.3d 834 (Mo. App. 2002) (governing finality dates for judgments in post-conviction matters)
Twitty v. State, 322 S.W.3d 608 (Mo. App. 2010) (timeliness of notices of appeal under civil-procedure rules)
Wise v. State, 219 S.W.3d 270 (Mo. App. 2007) (timeliness requirements for appeals from post-conviction orders)