Montez Thomas v. State of Missouri
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1293
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Movant Montez Thomas filed a timely pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion; the court appointed the appellate public defender on May 12, 2015.
- A public defender from Office B entered appearance and received a 30-day extension; the transcripts of plea and sentencing were filed July 7, 2015, making the amended motion due October 5, 2015.
- On September 25, 2015, appointed counsel discovered a conflict (also representing Movant’s co-defendant), moved to withdraw, asked that the appointment be vacated and another public defender office be appointed, and requested another 30-day extension.
- The court allowed withdrawal, reappointed Office A, vacated the original appointment order, and granted an additional 30-day extension; new counsel filed an amended motion on December 28, 2015.
- The motion court denied the amended motion without a hearing and did not discuss timeliness. The appellate court concluded the December filing was untimely and remanded for an abandonment inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 28, 2015 amended motion was timely | Movant: amended motion was timely because new appointment/order restarted the clock and counsel had extensions | State: time limits were triggered by the initial public defender appointment and transcript filing; later withdrawal/reassignment did not restart the clock | The December amended motion was untimely; deadline remained October 5, 2015 |
| Effect of counsel withdrawal/office reassignment on Rule 24.035 deadlines | Movant: withdrawal and reappointment created a new appointment starting the Rule 24.035 timeline anew | State: appointment of the public defender office—not an individual attorney—triggers deadlines; transfer doesn’t restart timelines | Withdrawal/reassignment does not restart filing deadlines; office appointment date controls |
| Validity of the second 30-day extension | Movant: court’s grant of another 30 days was permissible under circumstances | State: Rule allows only one 30-day extension; granting another exceeded the court’s jurisdiction | Granting the additional 30-day extension was improper under Rule 24.035 |
| Need for remand and abandonment inquiry | Movant: claims should be adjudicated (or court should consider pro se motion) | State: court denied amended motion (untimely) but record lacks inquiry into whether appointed counsel abandoned the case | Court reversed and remanded for the motion court to conduct an abandonment inquiry to determine which motion to adjudicate |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015) (post-conviction timeliness and requirement that motion court inquire into appointed-counsel abandonment)
- State v. White, 873 S.W.2d 590 (Mo. banc 1994) (withdrawal/second counsel does not restart Rule 24.035 deadlines; late amended motion is untimely)
- Vogl v. State, 437 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2014) (request to rescind appointment or withdraw does not relieve counsel of Rule 24.035 duties)
- State v. Isaiah, 874 S.W.2d 429 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (transfer between public defender offices due to conflict does not affect filing timelines)
- State v. Hill, 808 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (appointment of the public defender office, not the individual attorney, triggers post-conviction deadlines)