MacKley v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 198
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Movant Edward Mackley pled guilty to two counts of felony resisting arrest as part of a plea agreement and received four-year sentences to run concurrently.
- During Rule 29.07 examination, Mackley stated his counsel did not threaten or promise to induce the guilty pleas.
- Mackley filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion; counsel was appointed and an amended motion followed, and an evidentiary hearing was held.
- The motion court denied the Rule 24.035 motion after findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Mackley timely argued issues related to ineffective assistance by plea counsel concerning jail time credit; the State urged dismissal for untimeliness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 24.035 motion | Mackley argues merit-based relief on jail time credit claims (ineffective assistance). | State argues the motion was untimely under Rule 24.035(b). | Untimely; motion must be dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 242 S.W.3d 705 (Mo. banc 2008) (standards for clearly erroneous findings under Rule 24.035)
- Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (timeliness and waiver under Rule 24.035)
- Swofford v. State, 323 S.W.3d 60 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (untimely Rule 24.035 motion effects)
- Searcy v. State, 103 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (delivery requirement to challenge conviction under Rule 24.035)
- State ex rel. Moore v. Brown, 270 S.W.3d 447 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (finality and entry date for judgments under Rule 29.07)
- State v. Romeiser, 46 S.W.3d 656 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (recognition of judgment entry as final when written record is made)