State ex rel. Mario Richardson, Relator v. The Honorable Brian H. May, 565 S.W.3d 191

Relator Mario Richardson was charged in July 2016; he pleaded not guilty at arraignment on July 12, 2016 (the case’s initial plea).
After Judge Goldman retired, Judge Brian May was administratively assigned to the case in November 2016 and remained the presiding judge.
A jury trial date was set for April 2, 2018; the state filed a superseding indictment on March 29, 2018 adding new drug counts.
Richardson waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty to the superseding indictment on April 12, 2018.
Richardson filed an application for change of judge under Mo. Sup. Ct. Rule 32.07 on April 16, 2018; Respondent denied it as untimely and Richardson sought a writ of prohibition.
The Supreme Court of Missouri (en banc) held Richardson’s application was untimely and quashed the preliminary writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 32.07’s 10‑day clock runs from the first plea in the case or from a plea to newly added charges	Richardson: “initial plea” means the first plea to each newly added charge; plea to superseding indictment opened a new 10‑day window	State/majority: “initial plea” means the first plea in the criminal case as a whole; only one initial plea triggers the Rule 32.07 clock	Held for State: the initial plea is the case’s first plea (July 12, 2016); Richardson’s April 16, 2018 application was untimely
Whether designation of a trial judge can restart the 10‑day period when the judge was previously assigned	Richardson: waiver/arraignment on new charges that referenced the judge constituted a new designation	State/majority: Respondent was designated in November 2016 and that designation was not rescinded; no new designation occurred in April 2018	Held for State: designation occurred when judge was assigned in Nov. 2016; application not filed within 10 days of designation

State ex rel. Fite v. Johnson, 530 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. banc 2017) (standards for writs of prohibition)
State ex rel. Manion v. Elliott, 305 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. banc 2010) (timeliness requirement deprives court of authority to act other than grant a timely change‑of‑judge application)
Buemi v. Kerckhoff, 359 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. banc 2011) (rules are interpreted like statutes; plain‑meaning inquiry)
State ex rel. Raack v. Kohn, 720 S.W.2d 941 (Mo. banc 1986) (liberal construction of right to disqualify judge; remedy of prohibition for denial of timely application)
State ex rel. Mountjoy v. Bonacker, 831 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. 1992) (purpose of Rule 32.07: balance fairness to litigants and avoidance of undue delay)