Williams v. State
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1503
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Williams was convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder, assault, and two armed-criminal-action counts, with life without parole and two life terms plus a 15-year term.
- Rule 29.15 timing required a post-conviction motion within 30 days after the transcript on direct appeal (1991 rule).
- Counsel filed the transcript Sept. 25, 1992; Williams’ pro se Rule 29.15 motion was filed Oct. 28, 1992, three days late.
- Post-conviction State motion to dismiss asserted untimeliness; Williams alleged Counsel’s duty to file timely and that untimeliness was due to Counsel’s miscalculation.
- 1993 evidentiary hearing: Counsel testified he received the pro se motion timely and would file on time; Williams testified Counsel assured timely filing; the circuit court dismissed as untimely.
- July 2010 Williams filed a Motion to Reopen 29.15 Proceedings Due to Fraud and Abandonment of Counsel; circuit court denied in 2012 for lack of jurisdiction; remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to reopen for abandonment. | Williams | State | Circuit court had jurisdiction to consider abandonment; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was error. |
| Whether abandonment under McFadden allows reopening of final post-conviction proceedings. | Williams relies on McFadden as indistinguishable. | State disputes applicability; not necessary to decide at this stage. | Court need not decide applicability of McFadden here; jurisprudence supports jurisdiction to hear abandonment claim. |
| Whether res judicata barred Williams’ 2010 motion to reopen. | Williams | State | Res judicata does not bar; prior 1993 dismissal was not a final abandonment finding. |
| Whether timing rules are jurisdictional or only control authority, and abandonment can toll timing. | Williams | State | Rule 29.15 time limits are mandatory; abandonment creates an exception to allow late filing; court had authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- McFadden v. State, 256 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. banc 2008) (abandonment when counsel assures filing but fails to file on time; allows reopening under limited facts)
- Eastburn v. State, 400 S.W.3d 770 (Mo. banc 2013) (clarified motion to reopen does not exist; proper motion is to file an untimely post-conviction relief motion based on abandonment)
- Daugherty v. State, 116 S.W.3d 616 (Mo.App.2003) (courts have jurisdiction to consider abandonment-motive motions in post-conviction proceedings)
- Dudley v. State, 254 S.W.3d 109 (Mo.App.2008) (post-conviction court custody over judgments; abandonment doctrine applied)
- Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921 (Mo. banc 1993) (counsel’s ineffective advice does not automatically constitute abandonment for timeliness)
- Nicholson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. banc 2004) (timely motion sent to wrong court may be timely filed with proper transfer)
- Spells v. State, 213 S.W.3d 700 (Mo.App.2007) (timely pro se motion mailed but misdirected; timely filing deemed if properly received)