Talley v. State
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 633
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Talley was convicted of statutory sodomy and the mandate issued August 19, 2008.
- Rule 29.15 timing required the initial motion within 90 days after mandate, by November 17, 2008.
- June 24, 2011 Talley filed an initial Rule 29.15 motion and a motion to file out of time with 11 factual allegations.
- The motion court dismissed as untimely and found no recognized exception; Talley appealed.
- The court applied Rule 29.15 standards: movant must timely file and prove entitlement to an evidentiary hearing, including exceptions or misfiling.
- The court held no timely filing and no applicable rare-circumstances exception were proven; affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Talley's Rule 29.15 motion timely or time-barred? | Talley argues rare circumstances justify late filing. | State contends no timely filing or recognized exception exists. | Untimely; no recognized exception shown. |
| Does the rare circumstances exception apply to Talley's late filing? | Allegations show events outside Talley's control. | Facts do not meet the rare-circumstances standard and distinguish cited cases. | Not satisfied; rare-circumstances exception denied. |
| Did abandonment by post-conviction counsel apply? | Talley cites counsel-related delays as justification. | Abandonment requires actions of counsel; not present here. | Inapplicable; abandonment not shown. |
| Did any other basis warrant an evidentiary hearing? | Supports entitlement based on timing issues. | No other basis established. | No evidentiary hearing warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicholson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. banc 2004) (rare circumstances extend filing deadline when timely filing disrupted by transfer/venue issues)
- Spells v. State, 213 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. App. 2007) (address forwarding error can toll timely filing under rare circumstances)
- Howard v. State, 289 S.W.3d 651 (Mo. App. 2009) (rare set of circumstances when movant delinquent through no fault of own)
- Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. banc 2010) (abandonment by post-conviction counsel recognized as exception)
- Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (summary of law for entitlement to evidentiary hearing in Rule 29.15 cases)
- Kirk v. State, 360 S.W.3d 859 (Mo. App. 2011) (standard for clearly erroneous findings on post-conviction review)