Linder v. State, 404 S.W.3d 926

Linder pled guilty in 2011 to three counts of felony forgery and later pled guilty to driving with a revoked license (felony) and DWI (misdemeanor); she received concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling 12 years plus additional sentences. No direct appeal was filed.
She timely filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion raising ~23 claims; the State Public Defender’s Office was appointed and later filed an amended Rule 24.035 motion and requested an evidentiary hearing.
The amended motion alleged coercion and ineffective assistance of plea counsel but failed to plead factual support and impermissibly attempted to incorporate prior pro se allegations by reference.
The motion court reviewed plea and sentencing transcripts, which contained Linder’s repeated testimony that no threats or promises were made and that she was satisfied with counsel; the court denied an evidentiary hearing and denied relief.
On appeal Linder did not challenge the substantive denial but argued the motion court erred by not sua sponte inquiring into appointed post‑conviction counsel’s performance, claiming abandonment because counsel’s amended motion was facially defective.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion court erred by not sua sponte investigating post‑conviction counsel abandonment	Linder: amended motion was so facially defective it amounted to abandonment and warranted sua sponte inquiry	State: Linder never raised abandonment below or sought reopening or findings; counsel’s filing was not a complete absence of performance	Court affirmed: claim not preserved; no trial‑court findings to review and counsel’s filing did not show complete abandonment
Whether appellate court may reach abandonment claim raised first on appeal	Linder: exception applies when there is complete absence of counsel performance	State: procedural rules require motion to reopen or motion to amend judgment to preserve issue	Held: appeal is improper vehicle; movant must move to reopen or seek findings under Rule 78.07(c) before appellate review

Gerlt v. State, 339 S.W.3d 578 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (standard for "clearly erroneous" review of motion‑court findings)
Hutton v. State, 345 S.W.3d 373 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (procedural requirement to file motion to reopen when alleging post‑conviction counsel abandonment)
State ex rel. Nixon v. Jaynes, 63 S.W.3d 210 (Mo. banc 2001) (discussing motion to reopen where post‑conviction counsel deprived movant of opportunity to pursue relief)
Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1991) (recognizing review where there is complete absence of post‑conviction counsel performance)
McFadden v. State, 256 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. banc 2008) (abandonment allows reopening of otherwise final post‑conviction case)
Ewing v. Denney, 360 S.W.3d 325 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (explaining abandonment remedy when post‑conviction counsel’s conduct forecloses relief)
Greathouse v. State, 859 S.W.2d 247 (Mo. App. W.D. 1993) (scope of appellate review under Rule 24.035(k))