Walter Barton v. State of Missouri, 486 S.W.3d 332

Barton was convicted of first-degree murder after multiple trials; his death sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
He filed a pro se Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion; the Public Defender System appointed Gary Brotherton and Amy Bartholow as counsel.
Brotherton filed a timely amended 29.15 motion asserting six broad grounds and 48 discrete claims; Brotherton later withdrew and others continued representation; the circuit court denied relief and this Court affirmed.
Barton subsequently moved to have the court find he was abandoned by post-conviction counsel and to be permitted to supplement his post-conviction motion, alleging Brotherton’s bipolar disorder caused omissions and poor drafting that led to waiver of claims on appeal.
The State argued Brotherton timely filed an extensive amended motion, so any deficiency was ineffective-assistance (unreviewable), not abandonment. The trial court denied Barton’s motion; Barton appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brotherton abandoned Barton in post-conviction proceedings	Brotherton’s bipolar disorder caused failure to raise vital claims and poor drafting, amounting to abandonment	Brotherton filed a timely, substantive amended motion (48 claims); thus he did not abandon Barton	Not abandoned — filing a timely amended motion with many claims precludes abandonment under Missouri law
Whether alleged omissions by post-conviction counsel are cognizable as abandonment vs. ineffective assistance	Omissions deprived Barton of issues on appeal and fair post-conviction review; should be treated as abandonment	Such omissions are claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, which Missouri courts categorically do not review	Court held omissions are ineffective-assistance claims (unreviewable), not abandonment
Whether Barton was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the abandonment claim	Barton’s factual allegations and co-counsel affidavit required a hearing	Because the claim does not fit Missouri’s narrow abandonment categories, no hearing was required	Motion court did not clearly err in denying a hearing; no cognizable abandonment claim

Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1991) (counsel took no action — abandonment remand and opportunity to amend)
Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1991) (counsel knew amendment needed but failed to file timely — abandonment)
Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2014) (distinguishes abandonment from ineffective assistance; limits abandonment doctrine)
Eastburn v. State, 400 S.W.3d 770 (Mo. banc 2013) (standard for review and caution against conflating abandonment with ineffectiveness)
Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54 (Mo. banc 2009) (explains exhaustion and preserves narrow abandonment scope)
McFadden v. State, 256 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. banc 2008) (discusses failure to file initial motion; later clarified by Price)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (federal rule on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel for habeas purposes; not resolving constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction)