Propst v. State, 535 S.W.3d 733

Propst pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary, received five years suspended and probation; probation was later revoked and his sentence executed.
The trial court advised Propst he had 180 days from delivery to DOC (delivered April 30, 2014) to file a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion (deadline Oct. 27, 2014).
A public defender contacted Propst, prepared a Form 40 for him to sign, and told Propst he would file it; Propst signed on Oct. 27 and relied on counsel to file.
The public defender miscalculated the deadline and filed the Form 40 one day late, on Oct. 28, 2014.
The motion court dismissed Propst’s Rule 24.035 motion as untimely under Rule 24.035(b); Propst appealed claiming a third‑party interference exception.

Issue	Propst's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the "third‑party interference" exception excuses an untimely pro se Rule 24.035 filing	Public defender’s active involvement and promise to file excuses lateness	Exception applies only when inmate did everything reasonably possible to ensure filing; Propst did not	Exception does not apply; dismissal affirmed
Whether it matters that the attorney was a public defender (vs. retained counsel)	Public‑defender initiation makes case like McFadden, supporting excusal	Nature of counsel irrelevant; focus is on inmate’s own efforts to file	Nature of counsel irrelevant; inmate’s failure to prepare or take steps is dispositive

Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2014) (establishes narrow third‑party interference exception and its limits)
McFadden v. State, 256 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. banc 2008) (public defender’s interference excused untimely filing where inmate prepared and mailed motion)
Nicholson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. banc 2004) (example of inmate taking reasonable steps to file pro se motion)
Spells v. State, 213 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (applying third‑party interference principles)
Vogl v. State, 437 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2014) (rules governing interpretation of post‑conviction motion procedures)