Steven D. Green v. State of Missouri
2016 Mo. LEXIS 251
| Mo. | 2016Background
- Steven Green was convicted of first-degree statutory rape and incest; after direct appeal he filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion (13 claims) and counsel filed an amended Rule 29.15 motion (5 claims) with the pro se motion physically attached.
- Two pro se claims (8.C.2 speedy‑trial; 8.C.3 failure to timely investigate/interview witnesses) were not encompassed by the five claims counsel litigated.
- The motion court held an evidentiary hearing, issued findings and conclusions addressing only the five claims in the amended motion, and entered an order denying post‑conviction relief without mentioning or adjudicating claims 8.C.2 and 8.C.3.
- Green appealed, arguing the motion court failed to adjudicate the attached pro se claims; the State argued Green waived challenges to deficient findings by not filing a Rule 78.07(c) motion to amend the judgment and that unaddressed fact issues are presumed resolved under Rule 73.01(c).
- The court analyzed incorporation under Rule 29.15(g), the scope of Rule 78.07(c) and Rule 73.01(c), and final-judgment doctrine under Rule 74.01(b), concluding the court failed to adjudicate all claims and thus there was no final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel effectively incorporated the pro se claims into the amended motion under Rule 29.15(g) | Physical attachment (stapling) plus counsel reference properly incorporated the pro se motion | Attachment was insufficient or constituted improper incorporation by reference | Physical attachment here properly incorporated the pro se claims under existing practice; incorporation was effective (but noted rule change coming) |
| Whether Rule 78.07(c) required Green to move to amend the judgment to preserve appellate review of omitted findings | The motion court didn’t adjudicate two pro se claims, so Rule 78.07(c) (motion to amend) is inapplicable because there was no final judgment and no mere omission of findings | Rule 78.07(c) applies to preserve challenges to missing findings and Green waived the issue by not moving to amend | Rule 78.07(c) does not apply: this was not a form/language omission of findings on adjudicated claims but a failure to adjudicate two claims at all; therefore waiver rule inapplicable |
| Whether Rule 73.01(c) presumptively supplies findings for unaddressed claims | Claims 8.C.2 and 8.C.3 are discrete claims that were never adjudicated, not mere "fact issues," so Rule 73.01(c) inapplicable | Unspecified fact findings may be presumed under Rule 73.01(c) | Rule 73.01(c) does not apply because the pro se entries were separate claims, not mere fact issues, and thus cannot be presumed resolved by the judgment |
| Whether the motion court’s order was a final judgment permitting appeal | The order denied the Rule 29.15 motion but omitted adjudication of two claims, so it isn’t final under Rule 74.01(b) when fewer than all claims are resolved without express determination there is no just reason for delay | Under Rule 29.15(k) an order overruling a Rule 29.15 motion is a final judgment for appeal; prior practice treated omissions as grounds for remand rather than dismissal | Because the court adjudicated only five of seven claims and made no Rule 74.01(b) express determination, the order was not a final judgment; appeal dismissed for lack of finality |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 994 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. 1999) (physical attachment of pro se material can satisfy incorporation concerns when documents are immediately at hand)
- Johnson v. State, 388 S.W.3d 159 (Mo. 2012) (Rule 78.07(c) applies to post‑conviction proceedings where judgment omitted required findings on adjudicated claims)
- Ndegwa v. KSSO, L.L.C., 371 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. 2012) (final judgment resolves all claims; no appellate review without final judgment)
- White v. State, 873 S.W.2d 590 (Mo. 1994) (remand required for omitted findings where pro se claims were before the court)
- Dickerson v. State, 269 S.W.3d 889 (Mo. 2008) (motion court must issue findings and conclusions on issues presented; remand may be required for omissions)