James Lenoir v. State of Missouri
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1239
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- James Lenoir pleaded guilty to multiple offenses in December 2011; sentences were suspended and he was placed on probation; probation was revoked and sentences executed on August 1–2, 2012.
- Lenoir’s pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motions were received by the circuit clerk on May 1, 2013 — 272 days after delivery to the Department of Corrections (beyond the 180-day deadline).
- The motion court appointed post-conviction counsel the same day but later dismissed Lenoir’s Rule 24.035 motions as untimely without holding an evidentiary hearing.
- Lenoir filed Rule 78.07 motions arguing his late filing was excused because he was placed in administrative segregation, required to use prison legal-claim procedures to obtain a form, and faced staffing/notary shortages that delayed filing; he asked for an evidentiary hearing on timeliness.
- The motion court took no action on the Rule 78.07 motions; Lenoir appealed, arguing the court erred by dismissing without an evidentiary hearing to decide whether exceptions to the 180-day rule applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion court erred by dismissing Lenoir’s Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing on timeliness | Lenoir: administrative segregation and prison staffing/notary delays are circumstances beyond his control that fit a narrow exception to the 180‑day rule; he should get an evidentiary hearing | State: Lenoir failed to prove timeliness or entitlement to a recognized exception; Rule 24.035 requires strict compliance and proof of timeliness | The court affirmed dismissal: Lenoir failed to meet the burden to show timely filing or an exception, so no evidentiary hearing required and the motion was properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 394 S.W.3d 475 (Mo. App. E.D.) (standard of review for Rule 24.035 disposition)
- Barnes v. State, 364 S.W.3d 765 (Mo. App. E.D.) (appellate review requires definite and firm belief of error)
- Mitchell v. State, 14 S.W.3d 672 (Mo. App. E.D.) (Rule 24.035 time limits are mandatory; untimely motions should be dismissed)
- Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc) (movant must allege facts showing motion is timely)
- Vogl v. State, 437 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc) (three recognized ways to meet timeliness burden: timely pro se filing, pleading+proof of exception in original motion, or proof of misfiling)