Watson v. State
2017 Mo. LEXIS 164
| Mo. | 2017Background
- Watson was convicted of first-degree robbery (acquitted of armed criminal action) and sentenced to 15 years; at sentencing the court told him to file a Form 40 within 180 days after delivery to DOC to preserve Rule 29.15 rights.
- Watson appealed; the conviction was affirmed and the mandate issued May 15, 2013. He filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion on October 2, 2014 (≈16 months late).
- Watson explained he never was delivered to DOC (he was detained for separate proceedings and later adjudicated incompetent on unrelated charges) and relied on the sentencing court’s statement that the deadline was 180 days after delivery to DOC.
- The motion court found the motion untimely and denied relief on the merits without an evidentiary hearing, concluding the evidence supported first-degree robbery (victim reasonably believed Watson had a gun).
- The Missouri Supreme Court held Watson’s motion was untimely but excused the untimeliness because the sentencing court misinformed him of the applicable deadline, created a limited exception, and reversed for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance for failure to request a lesser-included instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Rule 29.15 motion | Watson: untimely filing is excused because the sentencing court misinformed him that deadline was 180 days after delivery to DOC | State: deadlines are mandatory; prior cases hold failure/incomplete advisement does not excuse lateness | Court: created narrow exception — misinformation by sentencing court about the correct deadline can excuse untimeliness when defendant reasonably relied on it; Watson excused here |
| Applicability of existing exceptions to Rule 29.15 deadlines | Watson: misinformation is a "rare circumstance" outside his control justifying late filing | State: only established exceptions are counsel abandonment or third-party active interference; movant must exercise available steps to timely file | Court: recognized misinformation by the court as a new, limited exception distinct from Price/abandonment doctrines |
| Competency / knowledge as excuse for delay | Watson: adjudicated incompetent around time of filing, so may not have understood deadlines | State: ability to draft and file Form 40 means legal assistance not required; competency does not excuse untimely filing | Court: competency did not excuse delay here; but misinformation excuse applied regardless |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to request lesser-included instruction | Watson: counsel conceded element (no gun) in closing; counsel’s failure to request second-degree robbery instruction lacked reasonable strategy and prejudiced outcome | State: not requesting lesser instruction can be reasonable "all-or-nothing" strategy; jury acquitted on armed criminal action supporting counsel’s approach | Held: Watson alleged facts (not refuted by record) that warranted an evidentiary hearing to determine counsel’s strategy and prejudice; remanded for hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test — performance and prejudice)
- Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2012) (Rule 29.15 timeliness is mandatory; movant must plead a recognized exception)
- Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700 (Mo. banc 2010) (recognized exceptions to Rule 29.15 timeliness: counsel abandonment and rare circumstances)
- Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 2014) (narrow "third-party active interference" exception requiring movant to take reasonable steps and be frustrated by third-party interference)
- Talley v. State, 399 S.W.3d 872 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (rejected claim that court’s incorrect advisement excused late filing where movant had not followed even the incorrect instruction)
- Francis v. State, 60 S.W.3d 662 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (no prejudice where court advised an earlier deadline than applicable)
- Reed v. State, 781 S.W.2d 573 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989) (failure to recite specific deadlines at sentencing does not override mandatory time limits)
- McNeal v. State, 412 S.W.3d 886 (Mo. banc 2013) (movant entitled to evidentiary hearing where counsel effectively conceded lesser offense but did not request instruction)
- McNeal v. State, 500 S.W.3d 841 (Mo. banc 2016) (clarifies objective-reasonableness standard for counsel performance; subjective strategy is immaterial)