Miley v. State
559 S.W.3d 97
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Miley pleaded guilty in Jan 2012 to class C felony stealing; court suspended imposition and placed him on 5 years' probation per plea agreement.
- After a 2013 probation violation, Miley was sentenced to seven years but execution was suspended and he was again placed on probation.
- In Nov 2015 Miley violated probation and was delivered to DOC to complete a 120‑day Court‑Ordered Detention Sanctions (CODS) program under § 559.036.4(2).
- Miley failed to complete CODS; in May 2016 his probation was revoked and the seven‑year sentence was executed, and he was delivered to DOC again.
- Miley filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion for post‑conviction relief in Oct 2016; the motion court denied relief on the merits in Nov 2017.
- On appeal Miley argued his seven‑year executed sentence was unlawful under State v. Bazell and that the Rule 24.035 filing deadline should be measured from May 2016 (when sentence was executed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did the 180‑day Rule 24.035 filing period begin? | The 180 days began in May 2016 when the sentence was executed. | The 180 days began in Nov 2015 when Miley was first delivered to DOC for the 120‑day CODS program. | Began in Nov 2015 when Miley was delivered to DOC for CODS; motion untimely. |
| Effect of untimely Rule 24.035 motion | Court should reach merits because of alleged sentence unlawfulness (Bazell). | Untimely filing results in complete waiver; court must dismiss. | Untimely filing waived Rule 24.035 relief; court must dismiss motion. |
| Whether court misinformation excuses untimeliness | Miley contends any court misinformation about deadlines should excuse untimeliness. | No misinformation in record; even actual failure to advise does not excuse untimely filing. | No relief; record contains no inaccurate statement and failure to advise would not excuse untimeliness. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016) (basis for Miley's claim that his sentence was unlawful)
- Edwards v. State, 484 S.W.3d 847 (Mo.App.E.D. 2016) (initial delivery to DOC for a 120‑day program triggers Rule 24.035 filing period)
- Leigh v. State, 551 S.W.3d 76 (Mo.App.E.D. 2018) (Rule 24.035 timing is mandatory and strictly enforced)
- Stanley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. banc 2014) (motion court compelled to dismiss untimely Rule 24.035 motions)
- Gibbs v. State, 418 S.W.3d 522 (Mo.App.E.D. 2013) (untimely Rule 24.035 filing results in complete waiver)
- Hawkins v. State, 807 S.W.2d 214 (Mo.App.W.D. 1991) (court's failure to advise movant of Rule 24.035 deadline does not excuse untimely filing)