Moore v. State
2010 Mo. LEXIS 210
| Mo. | 2010Background
- Moore was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to two life terms without parole.
- At sentencing, Moore was informed of post-conviction relief options under Rule 29.15 and the 90-day deadline after the mandate.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, issuing its mandate on October 16, 2008.
- Moore filed a Rule 29.15 motion 218 days later, accompanied by a letter and an affidavit from his direct-appeal counsel stating she informed Moore the mandate had issued.
- The appellate attorney advised Moore of the deadline but Moore still did not file until May 22, 2009; the motion court dismissed as untimely.
- The State argued appellate counsel has no duty to notify, and Moore argues two judicially created exceptions permit late filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel abandonment excused late filing | Moore argues counsel's failure to timely inform him harmed review | State asserts appellate counsel has no duty to notify in post-conviction filings | No abandonment here; no duty on appellate counsel to inform; motion properly time-barred |
| Whether rare circumstances justify late receipt of motion | Moore relies on rare circumstances outside movant's control | State contends no such circumstances were shown | No rare circumstances present; late filing not justified |
| Whether the clerk's mandate notice affected timing | Moore relied on clerk notification of mandate to time his filing | State maintains clerk notice sufficed; Moore received it | Clerk notice presumed received; does not excuse late filing |
| Whether Rule 29.15(b) filings require timely posting of authority | Moore seeks relief under exception to timing rules | State contends strict 90-day deadline applies absent exceptions | Rule 29.15(b) period applies; exceptions not met |
Key Cases Cited
- McFadden v. State, 256 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. banc 2008) (counsel abandonment can excuse late post-conviction filing when ineffective assistance shown)
- Nicholson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. banc 2004) (rare circumstances principle for late filings)
- Spells v. State, 213 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. App. 2007) (late filing justified when filings sent to improper venue)
- Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921 (Mo. banc 1993) (notice requirements for Rule 29.15 original motion)
- Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (abandonment can occur when counsel misacts to movant's detriment)
- Webb ex rel. J.C.W. v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009) (timeliness and jurisdictional concepts in Rule 29.15 contexts)