Mercer v. State
2017 Mo. LEXIS 93
Mo.2017Background
- Mercer was convicted of rape and incest in 2008 and exhausted direct and post-conviction relief avenues; he then filed a pro se motion for post-conviction DNA testing under § 547.035.
- The circuit court issued a show-cause order to the State and scheduled a hearing, but the record does not show the State responded or that a hearing occurred.
- On April 21, 2014 the court entered a docket entry stating Mercer’s motion was “overruled and denied”; the entry was not denominated a signed judgment and no findings of fact or conclusions of law were issued.
- Mercer learned of the docket entry only months later, wrote the trial court requesting the statutorily required findings, and received no substantive corrective action.
- Mercer obtained leave to file a late notice of appeal; the Missouri Supreme Court accepted transfer and reviewed whether the denial complied with § 547.035.8 and post-conviction procedure rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s docket entry denying § 547.035 DNA testing is a final, appealable judgment | Mercer: the docket entry overruled the motion and Rule 29.15(k) deems such an order a final judgment for appeal | State: docket entry not denominated a judgment so appealability is lacking | Court: treated the overruling as a final, appealable judgment under post-conviction rules and Rule 29.15(k) |
| Whether the court erred by denying the motion before State complied with the show-cause order and without a hearing | Mercer: denial was premature because State didn’t respond and no hearing was held | State: (implicitly) court had discretion; appealability procedural issues | Court: did not rest decision on this point; dispositive issue was lack of findings and conclusions |
| Whether the court violated § 547.035.8 by failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law | Mercer: statute and Belcher require specific findings to permit meaningful appellate review | State: argued procedural deficiencies (appealability/form) but court previously reviewed § 547.035 rulings | Court: reversed and remanded because the court failed to issue required findings and identify record support for denial |
| Whether Mercer forfeited the issue by not using Rule 78.07(c) or Rule 74.03 remedies | State: argued form/language defects must be preserved by a motion to amend or set-aside; alternative procedural bars asserted in dissents | Mercer: raised the lack of findings in pro se letters and was not notified timely; sought late appeal | Court: found Mercer preserved the issue by informing the trial court and the court’s inaction meant the complaint was preserved for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Belcher v. State, 299 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. banc 2009) (requires specific findings of fact and conclusions of law for § 547.035 denials to allow meaningful appellate review)
- Reber v. State, 976 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. banc 1998) (analyzes when civil procedure rules apply to post-conviction motions; Rule 74.01 conflicts with post-conviction rules)
- Weeks v. State, 140 S.W.3d 39 (Mo. banc 2004) (§ 547.035 motions are governed by post-conviction procedures insofar as applicable)
- Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (this Court has jurisdiction to determine correctness of motion-court’s exercise of authority in post-conviction matters)