Snyder v. State, 334 S.W.3d 735

Snyder pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree on April 2, 2008 under a plea agreement; armed criminal action counts were dismissed and sentences could be capped at 15 years, to run concurrently with other sentences.
Sentencing on May 7, 2008 imposed concurrent terms of 15 years for robbery and 10 years for burglary, to run concurrently with three other sentences.
Snyder was delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections on May 9, 2008.
On July 10, 2008 Snyder sought an extension to file a Rule 24.035 motion, claiming lack of legal resources; the court granted 120 extra days.
On December 29, 2008 Snyder filed his Rule 24.035 motion; an amended motion was filed August 24, 2009 alleging ineffective assistance based on counsel's misrepresentation about a 120-day drug treatment program and probation.
The motion court denied the post-conviction motion without an evidentiary hearing on December 29, 2009.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State waived timeliness issue on appeal	Snyder's timeliness challenge was not raised by State in the motion court.	State could raise timeliness for the first time on appeal; time limits are mandatory.	State waived its timeliness challenge; timeliness may be raised on appeal but is waived if not raised below.
Whether motion court correctly denied post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing	Record shows counsel promised a 120-day drug treatment program and probation; thus factual questions exist warranting an evidentiary hearing.	Record refutes reliance on such promises; plea colloquy shows no such promises were made.	No evidentiary hearing required; record refutes movant's claim and the court properly denied relief.

Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (Rule 24.035 time limits are non-jurisdictional but subject to waiver)
White v. State, 91 S.W.3d 154 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (time limits for post-conviction relief are constitutionally valid and mandatory)
Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. banc 2010) (timeliness waiver and procedure for post-conviction relief)
Andrews v. State, 282 S.W.3d 372 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (timeliness challenges may be raised on appeal; not jurisdictional)
Swofford v. State, 323 S.W.3d 60 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (courts may enforce Supreme Court rules even if unobjected)
Mackley v. State, 331 S.W.3d 733 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (followed Swofford on timeliness issue in some circumstances)
McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 298 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. banc 2009) (statutes or rules may be waived if not timely raised; non-jurisdictional)
Reynolds v. Carter Cnty., 323 S.W.3d 447 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (statutory defenses enforced like Supreme Court rules when not jurisdictional)
State v. Teer, 275 S.W.3d 258 (Mo. banc 2009) (Missouri Supreme Court on procedural practice and pleading)
Patel v. Pate, 128 S.W.3d 873 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (procedural defenses; limitations related to tolling and waivers)