Wadel v. State
2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 729
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Dec. 2011 Wadel was convicted of two counts statutory sodomy (1st degree), one count statutory rape (1st degree), and two counts child endangerment (1st degree); concurrent prison terms imposed in Feb. 2012.
- This court affirmed his convictions on April 30, 2013, and issued its mandate in May 2013.
- Wadel filed a pro se Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion on September 9, 2013 (110 days after the mandate); counsel later filed an amended motion and a hearing was held in Nov. 2015.
- The motion court denied relief on Feb. 3, 2016; Wadel appealed the denial.
- The State argued, and the court agreed, the pro se Rule 29.15 motion was untimely under Rule 29.15(b) (90 days after appellate mandate) and thus the motion court lacked authority to hear the merits.
- The sentencing court had misstated the deadline orally (180 days from delivery to DOC) but provided a written Post Conviction Relief Rights Notice that correctly states the 90-day rule; Wadel did not allege reliance on the misstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 29.15 motion | Wadel filed pro se motion (claimed earlier execution date on affidavit) — motion court treated motion as timely | State: pro se motion filed 110 days after mandate, thus untimely and waived | Motion untimely; court vacated denial and remanded to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether court misinformation (Watson exception) excuses untimeliness | Wadel relied on sentencing court’s oral statement that he had 180 days after delivery to DOC | State: written notice provided the correct 90-day rule; Wadel did not allege reliance and, in any event, was delivered to DOC more than 180 days before filing | Watson exception not met: written notice contained correct deadline; Wadel did not allege reliance; even if he had, he was delivered to DOC beyond 180 days |
| Effect of earlier notarized affidavit/execution date on filing date | Wadel’s in forma pauperis affidavit was notarized July 20, 2012 (arguably showing earlier execution) | State: execution date does not prove when motion was dispatched or received; docket/file stamp controls | Not sufficient; actual filing date (Sept. 9, 2013) controls; motion untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wadel, 398 S.W.3d 68 (Mo. App. W.D.) (appellate affirmance of underlying convictions)
- Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (movant must plead and prove timeliness or an exception to Rule 29.15 time limits)
- Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423 (Mo. banc 2017) (limited exception where sentencing court misinformation at colloquy can excuse untimely Rule 29.15 filings)
- Federhofer v. State, 462 S.W.3d 838 (Mo. App. E.D.) (file-stamp controls actual filing date)
- Rinehart v. State, 503 S.W.3d 287 (Mo. App. W.D.) (motion court lacks authority to reach merits of untimely Rule 29.15 motion)