Trice v. State
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 902
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant was convicted of first-degree statutory rape and sentenced to 15 years.
- Direct appeal affirmed the conviction and sentence; mandate issued 11 January 2007.
- Appellant filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief; stamped received 12 April 2007.
- The 90-day deadline ran from the mandate date, making the motion untimely under Rule 29.15(b).
- Appellant argued the late receipt was caused by clerk stamping error or circumstances beyond control.
- The motion court initially considered the motion timely and denied it on the merits without an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the Rule 29.15 motion | Trice contends timely receipt due to clerical error or excusable delay. | State asserts untimely filing with no excusable circumstances. | Untimely; no rare exception justified excusing the late filing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. banc 1989) (mandatory 90-day filing window; constitutional)
- Shields v. State, 87 S.W.3d 355 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2002) (filing deemed when deposited with clerk)
- Malone v. State, 798 S.W.2d 149 (Mo. banc 1990) (waiver for untimely Rule 29.15 motion)
- Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (untimely filing requires dismissal absent excusable neglect)
- McFadden v. State, 256 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. banc 2008) (narrow exception for improper filing egregiously caused by counsel)
- Howard v. State, 289 S.W.3d 651 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2009) (late receipt due to prison mailroom errors may justify excusal)
- Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1991) (excuse for untimely filing based on appointed counsel fault)