Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921 (Mo. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921 (Mo. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases · …this court recognizes the right - created by rule 29.15 - to assistance of counsel, but only after a defendant indicates an intent to seek relief under rule 29.15 by filing the original motion. at p. 923 ✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2016–2021 · 2 courts · …as legal assistance is not required in order to file the original motion, the absence of proper legal assistance does not justify an untimely filing. at p. 923 ✓
76 citation events (61 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: CLAYTON D. COUNTS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent (moctapp, 2024-05-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CLAYTON D. COUNTS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
The “original motion is ‘relatively informal’ and serves to notify the circuit court, the appellate court, and the state that the movant intends to seek post-conviction relief.” Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423, 432 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TIMOTHY P. CABLE v. STATE OF MISSOURI
Mo. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
This excuse, the motion court correctly concluded, fails because “[a]s legal assistance is not required in order to file the original motion, the absence of proper legal assistance does not justify an untimely filing.” Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. banc 1993) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BRIAN L. MCDANIEL v. STATE OF MISSOURI
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
The abandonment exception, however, does not apply to excuse the untimely filing of an initial PCR motion in any context, Price, 422 S.W.3d at 301 , including alleged ineffective representation by counsel, id. at 300 (citing Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Umar Muhammad v. State of Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Watson v. State
Mo. · 2017 · confidence medium
Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Otis Cornelious v. State of Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
In Bullard v. State, our Supreme Court refused to extend the abandonment doctrine to an untimely initial motion. 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Daniel McKay v. State of Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Mo. banc 1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bruce Watson, Movant/Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Like the inmate in Bullard [v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo.banc 1993)] (but unlike the inmates in Nicholson and Spells), [Appellant] … took no steps to meet (or even 5 calculate) the applicable filing deadline for his motion.” Price, 422 S.W.3d at 302 ; see also Gunn, 2015 WL8776885 at *3.
cited Cited as authority (rule) DAVID C. MASON, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Mo. banc 2010) (citing Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993)).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Clayton Dean Price v. State of Missouri (3×)
Mo. · 2014 · confidence medium
Id. at 922-23 (emphasis added).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Price v. State (5×)
Mo. · 2014 · confidence medium
Id. at 922-23 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Citing Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. banc 1993), the circuit court stated that: “Abandonment by counsel or reliance on counsel’s erroneous advice does not excuse the untimely filing of an original pro se Rule 29.15 motion.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hendrickson v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Moore v. State, 328 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Mo. banc 2010); Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gerlt v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Rule 24.035(b) provides “[i]f no appeal of such judgment was taken, the motion shall be filed within 180 days of the date the person is delivered to the custody of the department of corrections.” (Emphasis added.) Further, “failure to file a motion within the time provided by this Rule 24.035 shall constitute a complete waiver of any right to proceed under this Rule 24.035 and a complete waiver of any claim that could be raised in a motion filed pursuant to this Rule 24.035.” “The movant is responsible for filing the original motion, and a lack of legal assistance does not justify an…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. State (2×)
Mo. · 2010 · confidence medium
Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State Ex Rel. Nixon v. Sheffield
Mo. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Price urges us to ignore that distinction, but we are bound by Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993), which explains why original and amended petitions are treated differently and overrules prior authority suggesting otherwise.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McFadden v. State
Mo. · 2008 · confidence medium
And, the state cites Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. banc 1993), for the proposition that abandonment does not occur simply because post-conviction counsel was ineffective, even if the form of ineffective assistance resulted in a failure to file the original pro se post-conviction motion.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bennett v. State
Mo. · 2002 · confidence medium
Rule 24.035(e); Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Mo. banc 1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State
Mo. · 2000 · confidence medium
Smith TV, 887 S.W.2d at 602 ; Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc 1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morgan v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
See also State v. Blankenship, 830 S.W.2d 1, 16 (Mo.banc 1992); Washington v. State, 972 S.W.2d 347, 348 (Mo.App.1998); Griffini v. Mitchell, 31 F.3d 690, 692 (8 th Cir.1994); Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 979 , 114 S.Ct. 475 , 126 L.Ed.2d 426 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. Nixon
E.D. Mo. · 1998 · confidence medium
As respondent points out, this claim of cause fails because an original pro se motion for post-conviction relief "need only give notice to the trial court, the appellate court, and the State that movant intends to pursue relief under [Rule 24.035]." Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. banc 1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hope
Mo. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
See Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495 (Mo.banc 1991); Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922 [1] (Mo.banc 1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Taylor (2×)
Mo. · 1997 · confidence medium
State v. Weaver, 912 S.W.2d 499, 520 (Mo. banc 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 153 , 136 L.Ed.2d 98 (1996); Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 979 , 114 S.Ct. 475 , 126 L.Ed.2d 426 (1993); State v. Ervin, 835 S.W.2d 905, 929 (Mo. banc 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 954 , 113 S.Ct. 1368 , 122 L.Ed.2d 746 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State
Mo. · 1994 · confidence medium
Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo. banc), cert. denied — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 475 , 126 L.Ed.2d 426 (1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reuscher v. State (2×)
Mo. · 1994 · confidence medium
Smith v. State, 887 S.W.2d 601 (Mo. banc 1994), and Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. banc 1993), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 475 , 126 L.Ed.2d 426 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Anthony Griffini v. Cranston J. Mitchell, Chairman of the Board of Probation and Parole of the State of Missouri
8th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
E.g., Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922-23 (Mo.) (banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 475 , 126 L.Ed.2d 426 (1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. White
Mo. · 1994 · confidence medium
This is in part because “[a]n amended motion differs significantly from the original motion.” Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Mo. banc 1993).
discussed Cited "see" Jakib Propst v. State of Missouri (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bullard, 853 S.W.2d at 922-23 ("An original motion . . . is relatively informal, and need only give notice to the trial, the appellate court and the State that movant intends to pursue [post-conviction relief] 5 under Rule 29.15 [or 24.035].
cited Cited "see" Gehrke v. State
Mo. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. banc 1993).
cited Cited "see" Jackson v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 475 , 126 L.Ed.2d 426 (1993).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Rachel A. Kinsella v. State of Missouri
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292, 297 (Mo. banc 2014); see also Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Mo. banc 1993).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Swofford v. State
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989); see also Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. banc 1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dewey BULLARD, Movant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Defendant-Respondent
75310.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
May 25, 1993.
853 S.W.2d 921
1993 WL 173061
William D. Rotts, Columbia, for movant-appellant., William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for defendant-respondent.
Benton.
Cited by 38 opinions  |  Published
BENTON, Judge.

Dewey Bullard appeals the dismissal, for untimely filing, of his Rule 29.15 motion, claiming abandonment by appellate counsel. After opinion by the Court of Appeals, Western District, this Court granted transfer. Rule 83.03. The judgment below is affirmed.

/.

Bullard was convicted by a Boone County jury of sexual assault in the first degree, and sentenced to a term of four years. Bullard timely filed a notice of appeal.

Bullard fired his trial counsel, and hired a new attorney for the appeal. According to the motion below, this new attorney also agreed to represent Bullard in his Rule 29.15 proceedings. Allegedly, this new attorney told Bullard that a 29.15 motion could be timely filed after the appellate court ruled on the direct appeal.

On direct appeal, Bullard’s conviction and sentence were affirmed by order, pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). State v. Bullard, 847 S.W.2d 68 (Mo.App.1991). Because the transcript was filed on March 28, 1991, Bullard’s 29.15 motion was due on April 29, 1991. Rules 29.15(b), 44.01(a). No Rule 29.15 motion was filed by April 29, 1991.

After his conviction was affirmed, Bul-lard fired this second attorney, and hired yet a third attorney to pursue post-conviction relief. Bullard filed a Rule 29.15 motion on December 20, 1991. The motion court originally denied leave to file this motion, but later allowed Bullard to file an amended motion claiming he was abandoned by appellate counsel. The amended motion was filed on January 15, 1992. On January 29, 1992, the motion court dismissed the Rule 29.15 motion for failure to comply with the time limits of the Rule.

Bullard raises two claims on appeal. First, Bullard requests that this Court interpret Rule 29.15 to allow claims of abandonment to excuse the untimely filing of the original motion. Second, Bullard argues that strict interpretation of the time limits in Rule 29.15 for filing the original motion would interfere with his state and federal constitutional rights.

II. Abandonment in the Original Motion

Rule 29.15 establishes time limits for filing an original motion. Rule 29.15(b) Bullard analogizes these time limits to those for filing an amended motion. Rule 29.15(f).

Previously, this Court recognized that abandonment will excuse the untimely filing of an amended motion if the movant is without fault. Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493, 495-95 (Mo. banc 1991); Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495, 497-98 (Mo. banc 1991). Despite Bullard’s arguments, these two circumstances are not analogous.

An amended motion differs significantly from the original motion. An amended motion is a final pleading, which requires legal expertise. Counsel must be appointed for indigent movants in order to assure its proper drafting. Rule 29.15(e). An original motion, on the other hand, is relatively informal, and need only give no[*923] tice to the trial court, the appellate court, and the State that movant intends to pursue relief under Rule 29.15. As legal assistance is not required in order to file the original motion, the absence of proper legal assistance does not justify an untimely filing. Cf. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 82-83, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 1095-96, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985) (indigent defendant has a right to psychiatric assistance, but first must show that such assistance is necessary to his defense). In combination with Luleff and Sanders, this Court recognizes the right— created by Rule 29.15—to assistance of counsel, but only after a defendant indicates an intent to seek relief under Rule 29.15 by filing the original motion. [1]

III. Constitutional Issues

Bullard alleges that the strict time limits violate his constitutional right to a review of asserted violations of his right to counsel in his original trial.

The time limits of Rule 29.15 allow at least 90 days from a final judgment of the trial court before the original motion is due. The original motion is not held to any level of strict formality and serves mostly to give notice that an individual desires to pursue relief under Rule 29.15. Rule 29.15 neither anticipates nor requires a detailed investigation by movant before the motion is filed. A movant has sufficient time to list those facts known to the movant that would justify relief. Rule 29.15. Therefore, the time limits are reasonable and do not infringe a movant’s due process rights. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989).

IV.

The judgment below is affirmed.

All concur.
1

. To the extent that it is inconsistent with this opinion, State v. Werner, 810 S.W.2d 621, 626 (Mo.App.1991) is overruled.