Manuel v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1396
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Movant Michael T. Manuel was convicted by a jury of first-degree robbery, three counts of armed criminal action, assault in the second degree, and child kidnapping arising from a robbery, stabbing, and theft involving a child in the car.
- The trial court found Manuel to be a persistent offender and imposed a total sentence of forty-two years, which this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- The mandate affirming the convictions and sentences issued June 18, 2009.
- Manuel filed a pro se Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion ninety-one days after the mandate, on September 17, 2009, with appointed counsel later filing an amended motion seeking an evidentiary hearing for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- The state moved to dismiss the motion as untimely; after a hearing, the motion court denied the amended motion without findings.
- The court concluded Manuel’s Rule 29.15 motion was untimely and should be dismissed, vacating the judgment and remanding for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Manuel’s Rule 29.15 motion was timely filed. | Manuel contends timely filing despite untimeliness. | State argues Rule 29.15 deadlines are mandatory and untimely. | Untimely filing required dismissal; mandate to dismiss the motion. |
| Whether administrative segregation constituted a circumstance outside Manuel's control that excused tardiness. | Segregation prevented timely access to materials and filing. | Segregation does not excuse untimeliness absent rare circumstances. | Not a valid excuse; tardiness remains fatal. |
| Whether the motion court erred in dismissing the post-conviction motion without findings of fact or conclusions of law. | Court vacated and remanded with directions to dismiss the motion due to untimeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. banc 1989) (mandatory time limits to avoid delay in claims)
- Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (courts cannot extend Rule 29.15 deadlines)
- State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. banc 1997) (untimely Rule 29.15 motion cannot be cured)
- Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. banc 2010) (untimely pro se motion results in waiver)
- Swofford v. State, 323 S.W.3d 60 (Mo. App. 2010) (untimely pro se post-conviction relief cannot be cured)
- J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009) (timeliness considerations under Rule 29.15)
- Howard v. State, 289 S.W.3d 651 (Mo. App. 2009) (rare circumstances where late receipt is excused)
- McFadden v. State, 256 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. banc 2008) (abandonment doctrine in timely filing context)
- Andrews v. State, 282 S.W.3d 372 (Mo. App. 2009) (cited in examining timely filing and related issues)