Richard Wesley Williams v. State of Missouri
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 1143
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In May 2010 Richard Williams fatally stabbed John Joslin; a jury convicted him of first-degree murder and armed criminal action and imposed consecutive prison terms (life without parole and 30 years). The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Williams, 386 S.W.3d 925 (Mo. App. 2012).
- Williams filed a timely pro se Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion on March 11, 2013 alleging 23 claims; the court appointed the Office of the Public Defender (PCR counsel) on March 13, 2013.
- PCR counsel filed an amended Rule 29.15 motion on June 13, 2013 that added five new claims and incorporated nine claims from the pro se motion.
- Under Rule 29.15(g) the amended motion deadline (including a single 30-day extension) was June 12, 2013; PCR counsel’s June 13 filing was therefore untimely.
- An untimely amended motion gives rise to a presumption that PCR counsel abandoned the movant, triggering the motion court’s duty to conduct an independent inquiry into abandonment.
- The motion court denied the claims raised or incorporated in the amended motion but did not address the remaining 14 distinct claims in Williams’s pro se motion (which included prosecutorial- and appellate-error claims). The appellate court reversed and remanded for an abandonment inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the motion court erred by denying relief without determining timeliness of the amended motion | Williams: amended motion was untimely; lack of timeliness triggers presumption of abandonment and requires independent inquiry | State: agrees amended motion was untimely and remand for abandonment inquiry is required | Court: amended motion was untimely; remand for motion court to conduct independent abandonment inquiry |
| Whether remand is unnecessary because the motion court adjudicated all pro se claims | Williams: remand needed because many pro se claims were not adjudicated | State: conceded untimeliness and need for remand on abandonment issue | Court: remand necessary because 14 pro se claims were not addressed; court did not adjudicate all claims |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 386 S.W.3d 925 (Mo. App. 2012) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
- Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015) (untimely amended motion presumes abandonment; motion court must inquire)
- Vogl v. State, 437 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. banc 2014) (discusses abandonment inquiry standard)
- Childers v. State, 462 S.W.3d 825 (Mo. App. 2015) (remand required for abandonment inquiry unless motion court adjudicated all claims)
- Bustamante v. State, 478 S.W.3d 431 (Mo. App. 2015) (remedy and effect of adjudicating all claims)
- Frazee v. State, 480 S.W.3d 442 (Mo. App. 2016) (remand required where motion court may have considered wrong motion)
- Riley v. State, 945 S.W.2d 21 (Mo. App. 1997) (motion court lacks authority to extend amended-motion deadline beyond Rule 29.15(g) limits)