State v. Gibbs
418 S.W.3d 522
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant Grover D. Gibbs was convicted (Oct 24, 2008) of multiple domestic assault counts and resisting arrest and was ordered into a 120‑day institutional treatment program with delivery to DOC the same day.
- Initial probation was denied (Dec 29, 2008); on reconsideration the trial court granted probation (Feb 26, 2009).
- While on probation, Gibbs was arrested for DWI and driving while revoked; the court set a revocation hearing (Apr 13, 2012) and revoked probation.
- Gibbs then filed a Rule 24.035 post‑conviction motion (May 27, 2012) and a petition for writ of habeas corpus; the trial court denied both.
- On appeal Gibbs challenged (1) lack of notice of charges/evidence and manner of violation, (2) absence of a written statement of evidence/reasons for revocation, and (3) denial of a continuance.
- The appellate court dismissed the appeal as to the habeas denial and remanded with instructions to dismiss the Rule 24.035 motion as untimely filed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gibbs can appeal denial of habeas corpus challenging probation revocation | Habeas should review alleged revocation errors | Revocation errors are reviewable by writs, but not by ordinary appeal | Appeal from denial of habeas corpus dismissed (no appeal lies from such denial) |
| Whether Rule 24.035 motion could be used to challenge probation revocation | Rule 24.035 can reach jurisdictional defects and revoke errors | Gibbs argued trial court lacked authority and raised substantive revocation defects | Rule 24.035 claims waived because motion filed untimely; court must dismiss motion |
| When the Rule 24.035 filing period begins | Gibbs implied filing deadline was tolled until probation revocation or later events | Time runs from initial delivery into DOC to begin institutional program | Time began Oct 24, 2008 (delivery to DOC); motion filed May 27, 2012 was untimely |
| Whether appellate/trial court may reach merits of untimely Rule 24.035 motion | Gibbs sought merits review nonetheless | Courts lack authority to consider untimely postconviction motions | Court vacated denial and remanded with instruction to dismiss the motion as untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stewart, 14 S.W.3d 671 (Mo. App. E.D.) (probation revocation is not a final judgment for appeal)
- State ex rel. Poucher v. Vincent, 258 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. banc) (errors in probation revocation reviewed by extraordinary writ)
- Bromwell v. Nixon, 361 S.W.3d 393 (Mo. banc) (no appeal lies from denial of habeas corpus)
- Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc) (Rule 24.035 time limits serve to avoid delay and stale claims)
- Hall v. State, 380 S.W.3d 583 (Mo. App. E.D.) (24.035 time limit begins upon initial delivery into DOC custody)
- Hart v. State, 367 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. App. W.D.) (time runs from DOC delivery even when court remands for institutional program)