Mitchell v. State
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1444
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Movant Lawrence Mitchell appeals a denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- Conviction: attempt to commit forcible rape; sentenced to life imprisonment as a prior offender; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Rule 29.15 motion filed pro se on November 8, 2010; amended motion followed with an evidentiary hearing request, which was denied.
- Mandate issuing July 1, 2010; movant’s pro se motion was filed beyond 90 days after mandate.
- Issue presented: timeliness of the Rule 29.15 motion under Rule 29.15(b) and related waiver principles.
- Court vacates the judgment and remands with directions to dismiss the motion for untimely filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether movant’s Rule 29.15 motion was timely filed | Mitchell argues timeliness based on August 28, 2009 date | State asserts untimely filing within 90 days after mandate | Untimely filing; waiver of post-conviction relief rights; must dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. banc 1989) (mandatory time limits in Rule 29.15 are constitutional and cannot be extended)
- Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (courts must dismiss untimely Rule 29.15 motions)
- State v. Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. banc 1997) (time limits in Rule 29.15 cannot be waived by state or court)
- Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (burden to show timeliness; untimeliness fatal defect)
- Manuel v. State, 351 S.W.3d 240 (Mo.App.2011) (untimely pro se motion cannot be cured by timely amend.)
- Swofford v. State, 323 S.W.3d 60 (Mo.App.2010) (untimely post-conviction motion fatal defect)
- Barnes v. State, 364 S.W.3d 765 (Mo.App.2012) (can consider untimeliness despite other issues)