Miller v. State
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1512
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Miller was charged with seven counts of second-degree offenses (two statutory rape, four statutory sodomy; one sodomy count acquitted) and sentenced to consecutive terms.
- Direct appeal was affirmed; mandate issued May 5, 2010.
- Miller filed a pro se Rule 29.15 PCR on Sept 20, 2010, accompanying a letter explaining the filing delay due to prison mailroom mishap.
- Post-conviction counsel later filed an Amended PCR Motion (May 18, 2011); an evidentiary hearing occurred (Sept 6, 2011) on merits, but timeliness was not addressed in the judgment.
- The trial court denied the Amended PCR Motion; the timeliness issue was not resolved in the judgment.
- This court grants Miller’s uncontested Motion to Remand to determine whether the original pro se PCR Motion was timely and how to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Miller's original pro se PCR timely filed? | Miller alleged a timely filing under prison mailroom mishap. | State agrees to remand; timeliness must be determined. | Remand required to determine timeliness. |
| May the court address the merits if timeliness is unresolved? | Timeliness can be shown by evidence in the motion. | Untimely filing cannot reach merits absent timely filing. | Remand to determine timeliness before merits. |
| Can a prison-mailroom mishap excuse a late filing under Dorris | Miller’s delay may fall within recognized exceptions. | Exceptions must be proven by movant; specifics not yet determined. | Timeliness to be evaluated on remand under recognized exceptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (timeliness and exceptions for post-conviction motions)
- Graves v. State, 372 S.W.3d 546 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (motion timeliness cannot be waived by State)
- Pollard v. State, 807 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. banc 1991) (requirements for alleging grounds to obtain an evidentiary hearing)
- Howard v. State, 289 S.W.3d 651 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (mishandling of motion by prison mailroom can excuse delay)
- McFadden v. State, 256 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. banc 2008) (improper filing due to circumstances beyond movant's control may toll timing)
- Nicholson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. banc 2004) (timeliness considerations in post-conviction filings; proper venue/filing path)
- Spells v. State, 213 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (late filing due to mailing address issues should be entertained)
- Trice v. State, 344 S.W.3d 277 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (late filing with insufficient explanation; remand considerations)
- Donahue v. State, 280 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (contextual standard for evaluating post-conviction timing)