resulting complete waiver in Missouri

2025“It is the court’s duty to enforce the mandatory time limits and the resulting complete waiver in the post-conviction rules—even if the [s]tate does not raise the issue.” Id. at 268 .

2025As stated in Dorris: “It is the court's duty to enforce the mandatory time limits and the resulting complete waiver in the post- conviction rules – even if the State does not raise the issue.” 360 S.W.3d at 268 ; see also Hatmon v. State, 661 S.W.3d 760 , 765-66 (Mo. 2023) (holding that “the mandatory time limit imposed by Rule 24.035 outweighs the law-of-the-case doctrine,” allowing the State to raise timeliness issue in a second appeal, even though the Court of Appeals had implicitly decided the issue in a prior appeal).

2014There is no need to put the parties through this exercise, however, as this Court repeatedly has held that "motion courts and appellate courts have a 'duty to enforce the mandatory time limits and the resulting complete waiver in the postconviction rules- — even if the State does not raise the issue.’ ” Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292, 297 (Mo. banc 2014) (quoting Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 268 (Mo. banc 2012)).

2014There is no need to put the parties through this exercise, however, as this Court repeatedly has held that “motion courts and appellate courts have a ‘duty to enforce the mandatory time limits and the resulting complete waiver in the postconviction rules – even if the State does not raise the issue.’” Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292, 297 (Mo. banc 2014) (quoting Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 268 (Mo. banc 2012)).

2023While Dorris holds that the time limitations in Rules 24.035 and 29.15 are non-waivable, it does not prohibit the parties from stipulating to, or admitting, the facts necessary to establish the timeliness of a movant’s filings. “[S]tipulations of fact relieve[ ] the parties from proving the matters stipulated.” Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36, 54 (Mo. 2012) (citing In re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582, 591 (Mo. 2006)).

2023While Dorris holds that the time limitations in Rules 24.035 and 29.15 are non-waivable, it does not prohibit the parties from stipulating to, or admitting, the facts necessary to establish the timeliness of a movant’s filings. “[S]tipulations of fact relieve[ ] the parties from proving the matters stipulated.” Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36, 54 (Mo. 2012) (citing In re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582, 591 (Mo. 2006)).

2023“Our Court cannot waive [] non-compliance with the time limits imposed by Rule 24.035.” Greenleaf v. State, 501 S.W.3d 911, 913 (Mo. App. 2016) (citing Dorris, 360 S.W.3d at 268 ).

2020Despite the issue being raised for the first time on appeal, the State cannot waive noncompliance with the time limit in Rule 24.035, and “even if the State does not raise the issue, it is the court’s duty to enforce the mandatory time limits and the resulting complete waiver in the post-conviction rules.” Roberts v. State, 407 S.W.3d 89, 92 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013), quoting Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 268 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal quotations omitted).

2020“A judgment is clearly erroneous when, in light of the entire record, the court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made.” Swallow v. State, 398 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 2013). 4 The timeframe for filing an initial PCR motion is governed by the provisions of Rule 29.15(b), which provides that “[f]ailure to file a motion within the time provided by this Rule 29.15 shall constitute a complete waiver of any right to proceed under this Rule 29.15 and a complete waiver of any claim that could be raised in a motion filed pursuant to this Rule 29.15.” Motion courts and

2020Ultimately, it is “of no consequence that the State did not previously raise the issue, because the State cannot waive the requirement that the movant timely file.” Henderson v. State, 372 S.W.3d 11, 15 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012). 3 If no appeal of [the sentencing court’s] 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….

2013“Where a motion for post-conviction relief is not timely filed (and the movant has failed to plead any facts excusing the untimely filing under the recognized exceptions), the motion court has no choice but to dismiss the motion.” Lilly v. State, 374 S.W.3d 390, 394 (Mo.App.