Meyer v. StateMeyer v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Ahrens
Movant appeals from the denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
On January 14, 1992, movant pled guilty to escаpe from confinement in violation of
Movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion on February 3, 1992, and a verified amended motion and request for evidentiary hearing on May 3, 1992. On August 12, 1992, the motion court issued its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment denying movant’s motions without an evidentiary hearing. Movant appeals.
The record in the ease reveаls a complaint was filed in Ste. Genevieve County on August 15, 1990, charging movant with escape from confinement. Counsel was appointed for movant on December 19, 1990, and a public defender entered her appearance on January 8, 1991. On December 31,
On June 19, 1991, movant filed a request for final disposition of detainers, pursuant to
On July 29,1991, movant sent an untitled notice to the prosecuting attorney of Ste. Genevieve County notifying the “court” he was available and ready to stand trial and had been transferred from the Eastern Missouri Correctional Center to the Central Missouri Correctional Center. Nothing in the record indicates the notice was ever filed with the court. However, the prosecuting attоrney of Ste. Genevieve County forwarded the notice to the special prosecuting attorney in St. Francois County. The special prosecutоr received the notice on August 8, 1991.
The cause was set for trial on October 9, 1991. Defense counsel requested a continuance, and the cause was reset for trial on October 23, 1991. An information charging movant with escape from confinement was filed November 1, 1991. Movant pled not guilty on November 5, 1991, and the cause was passed to December 3,1991. On November 7, 1991, movant filed a request for discovery and motion for change of venue. The motion was granted and the cause certified to St. Francois County on December 3, 1991.
On January 10, 1992, movant filed a motion to dismiss alleging the court was without jurisdiction because movant had not been tried within 180 days of his request for disposition of detainers filed June 19, 1991. The court overruled the motion, after argument, on January 14, 1992. On that date, movant pled guilty and admitted the facts supporting the escape from confinement charge. Thereafter, movant filed
pro se
and amended Rule 24.035 motions alleging,
inter alia,
that the trial court was without jurisdiction to accеpt his plea. The motion court denied the motions without an evidentiary hearing on August 12, 1992, finding that movant in his request for disposition failed to comply with
Our review of the motion court’s ruling is limited to a determination of whether its findings and conсlusions are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(j); Franks v. State, 783 S.W.2d 437, 438 (Mo.App. 1990). To be entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 24.035 motion, movant must plead facts, not conclusions, which would warrant relief if true; the factual allegations must not be refuted by the record; and the matters of which movant complained must have resulted in prejudice to movant’s defense. Franks, 783 S.W.2d at 438.
Movant contends the motion court clearly erred in denying relief on his claim that the trial court was without jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea, since his request for disposition of detainers was in substantial compliance with
Pursuant to § 217.450.1 RSMo (Supp. 1990), a prisoner may request final disposition of any untried indictment, information, or complaint pending against him or her in the state. That section alsо provides: “The request shall be in writing addressed to the court in which the indictment, information or complaint is pending and to
the
prose
The 180-day period of
In this case, we need not determine whether movant’s request was sufficient to invoke
Movant acknowledges he sent notice to the prosecuting attorney of Ste. Genevieve County rather than the special prosecutor charged with prosecuting the case. However, he argues he received no notice of the special prosecutor’s appointment, although notice thereof was sent to defense counsel whom the court had appointed to represent movant more than one month before. Mov-ant also argues the prosecuting attorney of Ste. Genevieve County “had at least some duty” to send the documents to the special prosecuting attorney.
We need not determine whether the prosecuting attorney of Ste. Genevieve County was necessarily obligated to forward movant’s request to the special prosеcutor. Movant’s obligation to deliver his request for disposition includes an obligation to deliver it to the proper authorities. See Jenkins, 778 S.W.2d at 817. We find this particularly true where, as here, a defendant bypasses the Director of the Division of Adult Institutions and assumes the burden of notification. The record indicates the prosecutоr charged with the duty of prosecuting the case had no knowledge of movant’s request for disposition before August 8, 1991. Absent such knowledge, the office was in no position, to advance the case. See State v. Walton, 734 S.W.2d 502, 503 (Mo. banc 1987) (applying the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, § 217.-490 RSMo 1986).
Movant was “brought to trial” within 180 days of his request for disposition as required by
Judgment affirmed.
REINHARD and CRIST, JJ., concur.
Notes
. The Interstate Agreement on Detainers,
. In counting days under the Detainers Law, we exclude the day the request was received. See State v. Galvan, 795 S.W.2d 113, 118 n. 8 (Mo. App.1990).