PCR motion in Missouri

2025McLaughlin v. State, 378 S.W.3d 328, 340 (Mo. banc 2012).

2024Therefore, issues that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be raised in a PCR motion “except where fundamental fairness requires otherwise and only in rare and exceptional circumstances.” Shockley v. State, 579 S.W.3d 881, 900 (Mo. banc 2019) (internal quotation mark omitted); McLaughlin, 378 S.W.3d at 345 (citing State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 509 (Mo. banc 2000)) (“Mr. McLaughlin does not claim his trial counsel were ineffective . . . .

2021This 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).

2020The 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)).

2022Stanley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 532, 540 (Mo. banc 2014).

2020The 3 court may extend the time for filing the amended [PCR] motion for one additional period not to exceed thirty days. “‘[T]his effective date of appointment of counsel is the date on which the office of the public defender is designated. . . .’” Stanley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 532, 540 (Mo. banc 2014) (quoting State v. White, 813 S.W.2d 862, 864 (Mo. banc 1991)).

2016The Missouri Supreme Court remanded, holding that abandonment can occur when PCR counsel finds "a sound basis for amending [movant's] pro se motion but fails timely to file the amended motion as required by [the PCR rule]." Id.; see also Moore, 458 S.W.3d at 824 (Where PCR counsel filed the amended motion between sixty and ninety days but failed to request the additional thirty days allowed by rule, the Missouri Supreme Court remanded "[b]ecause the existence of abandonment affects whether the claims in the amended motion have been waived.").

2016The Missouri Supreme Court remanded, holding that abandonment can occur when PCR counsel finds "a sound basis for amending [movant's] pro se motion but fails timely to file the amended motion as required by [the PCR rule]." Id.; see also Moore, 458 S.W.3d at 824 (Where PCR counsel filed the amended motion between sixty and ninety days but failed to request the additional thirty days allowed by rule, the Missouri Supreme Court remanded "[b]ecause the existence of abandonment affects whether the claims in the amended motion have been waived.").

2023Standard of Review and Applicable Principles of Law Our review of the denial of a PCR motion is limited to whether the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. 2 Rule 24.035(k); Ross v. State, 335 S.W.3d 479, 480 (Mo. banc 2011).

2020Applicable Legal Principles Our review of the denial of a PCR motion is limited to whether the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are “clearly erroneous.” 2 Rule 24.035(k); Ross v. State, 335 S.W.3d 479, 480 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Roberts v. State, 276 S.W.3d 833, 835 (Mo. banc 2009)).

2023The motion court’s “findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after review of the entire record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made.” Roberts v. State, 276 S.W.3d 833, 835 (Mo. banc 2009).

2020Applicable Legal Principles Our review of the denial of a PCR motion is limited to whether the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are “clearly erroneous.” 2 Rule 24.035(k); Ross v. State, 335 S.W.3d 479, 480 (Mo. banc 2011) (quoting Roberts v. State, 276 S.W.3d 833, 835 (Mo. banc 2009)).

2021See Nash v. State, 504 S.W.3d 831, 835 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (citing Johnson v. State, 470 S.W.3d 1 , 4–5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015)).

2017As we have also previously stated, a successive PCR motion is an “insufficient motion” for which the circuit court is under no obligation to provide the findings mandated by Rule 29.15(j), See Johnson v. State, 470 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015).

2021Vogl v. State, 437 S.W.3d 218, 226 (Mo. banc 2014).

2021See Vogl, 437 S.W.3d at 226 .

2012State v. Holloway, 877 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Mo.App.1994).

2012State v. Holloway, 877 S.W.2d 692, 697 (Mo.App.1994).

2021Accordingly, a movant is given the opportunity to raise those allegations in an amended motion. 3 Id. at 226 n.12 (emphasis added); see e.g., Washington v. State, 515 S.W.3d 786, 791 (Mo.App. 2017) (“Because Washington failed to timely file his initial pro se motion, and because his amended motion failed to allege any facts supporting his qualification for a recognized exception to the Rule 29.15 filing time limit, Washington has waived both his right to proceed under Rule 29.15 and any claim that could be raised in such a motion.”). 3 Both Movant and the State have posited that the motion cou

2020Movant Failed to Plead Third-Party Interference Even when an initial PCR motion is not filed within Rule 29.15(b) time limits, a movant may still excuse the late filing by “alleging and proving by a preponderance of the evidence in his motion that he falls within a recognized exception to the time limits[.]” Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 267 (Mo. banc 2012).

2025Mitchell v. State, 510 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).

2025Mitchell v. State, 510 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017).

2024See In re Hess, 406 S.W.3d 37, 43-45 (Mo. banc 2013) (explaining the ethical obligation lawyers owe to the court to avoid bringing false or frivolous claims); Weekley v. State, 265 S.W.3d 319 , 321 n.4 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (acknowledging the possibility that the rules governing lawyer ethics may require appointed counsel to omit frivolous claims originally included in a pro se PCR motion).

2024See In re Hess, 406 S.W.3d 37, 43-45 (Mo. banc 2013) (explaining the ethical obligation lawyers owe to the court to avoid bringing false or frivolous claims); Weekley v. State, 265 S.W.3d 319 , 321 n.4 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (acknowledging the possibility that the rules governing lawyer ethics may require appointed counsel to omit frivolous claims originally included in a pro se PCR motion).

2024Therefore, issues that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be raised in a PCR motion “except where fundamental fairness requires otherwise and only in rare and exceptional circumstances.” Shockley v. State, 579 S.W.3d 881, 900 (Mo. banc 2019) (internal quotation mark omitted); McLaughlin, 378 S.W.3d at 345 (citing State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 509 (Mo. banc 2000)) (“Mr. McLaughlin does not claim his trial counsel were ineffective . . . .

2024Instead, Mr. McLaughlin seeks to challenge the trial court’s evidentiary ruling as a matter of trial court err[or], which is not a cognizable claim in a Rule 29.15 proceeding.”); Tisius v. State, 183 S.W.3d 207, 212 (Mo. banc 2006) (“Unlike a claim of withheld evidence, which would not be known to a movant during trial or direct appeal, a claim involving allegedly improper argument was apparent at trial and could have been raised on direct appeal.”).

2024For, Davis does not contend that the PCR motion court lacked subject matter or personal jurisdiction to enter the PCR Judgment; instead, he attempts to couch his 4 “Ordinarily, we review the circuit court's ruling on a motion to set aside a judgment under Rule 74.06 for an abuse of discretion.” Kerth v. Polestar Ent., 325 S.W.3d 373, 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (citing In re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582, 587 (Mo. banc 2006)).

2024See Coulter v. Michelin Tire Corp., 622 S.W. 2d 421, 437 (Mo. App. S.D. 1981) (internal citations omitted) (citing Granite Bituminous Paving Co. v. Park View Realty. & Improvement Co., 270 S.W. 1142 , 1143 (Mo. banc 1917)) (“[An appellate court] may not reverse its former holding without actual resubmission and rehearing of the appeal.”); State v. Barnes, 517 S.W.2d 155, 169 (Mo. App. S.D. 1974) (same).

2024See Coulter v. Michelin Tire Corp., 622 S.W. 2d 421, 437 (Mo. App. S.D. 1981) (internal citations omitted) (citing Granite Bituminous Paving Co. v. Park View Realty. & Improvement Co., 270 S.W. 1142 , 1143 (Mo. banc 1917)) (“[An appellate court] may not reverse its former holding without actual resubmission and rehearing of the appeal.”); State v. Barnes, 517 S.W.2d 155, 169 (Mo. App. S.D. 1974) (same).

2024Bridgewater, 458 S.W.3d at 436-38 (granting Bridgewater’s original motion to recall the mandate, which was necessary to allow for remand to the motion court to hold an evidentiary hearing on newly discovered evidence that purportedly undermined the original denial of Bridgewater’s PCR motion); Finley v. State, 590 S.W.3d 432 , 437 (Mo. App. S.D. 2019) (“Unless our mandate is withdrawn, 5 Movant’s allegedly corroborated assertion that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance . . . cannot be evaluated by the motion court.

2024For, Davis does not contend that the PCR motion court lacked subject matter or personal jurisdiction to enter the PCR Judgment; instead, he attempts to couch his 4 “Ordinarily, we review the circuit court's ruling on a motion to set aside a judgment under Rule 74.06 for an abuse of discretion.” Kerth v. Polestar Ent., 325 S.W.3d 373, 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (citing In re Marriage of Hendrix, 183 S.W.3d 582, 587 (Mo. banc 2006)).

2024See Strosnider v. State, 514 S.W.3d 34, 40 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (denying a previously unraised claim of juror bias where defendant believed he personally knew the juror during trial but chose not to raise the issue until his PCR motion).

2024See Strosnider v. State, 514 S.W.3d 34, 40 (Mo. App. S.D. 2016) (denying a previously unraised claim of juror bias where defendant believed he personally knew the juror during trial but chose not to raise the issue until his PCR motion).

2024Therefore, issues that could have been raised on direct appeal may not be raised in a PCR motion “except where fundamental fairness requires otherwise and only in rare and exceptional circumstances.” Shockley v. State, 579 S.W.3d 881, 900 (Mo. banc 2019) (internal quotation mark omitted); McLaughlin, 378 S.W.3d at 345 (citing State v. Ferguson, 20 S.W.3d 485, 509 (Mo. banc 2000)) (“Mr. McLaughlin does not claim his trial counsel were ineffective . . . .

2023“In actions under Rule 29.15, any allegations or issues that are not raised in the Rule 29.15 motion are waived on appeal.” McLaughlin v. State, 378 S.W.3d 328, 340 (Mo. banc 2012) (quoting Johnson v. State, 333 S.W.3d 459, 471 (Mo. banc 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2021See 6 Eastburn, 400 S.W.3d at 773 .

2021Accordingly, a movant is given the opportunity to raise those allegations in an amended motion. 3 Id. at 226 n.12 (emphasis added); see e.g., Washington v. State, 515 S.W.3d 786, 791 (Mo.App. 2017) (“Because Washington failed to timely file his initial pro se motion, and because his amended motion failed to allege any facts supporting his qualification for a recognized exception to the Rule 29.15 filing time limit, Washington has waived both his right to proceed under Rule 29.15 and any claim that could be raised in such a motion.”). 3 Both Movant and the State have posited that the motion cou

2021Accordingly, a movant is given the opportunity to raise those allegations in an amended motion. 3 Id. at 226 n.12 (emphasis added); see e.g., Washington v. State, 515 S.W.3d 786, 791 (Mo.App. 2017) (“Because Washington failed to timely file his initial pro se motion, and because his amended motion failed to allege any facts supporting his qualification for a recognized exception to the Rule 29.15 filing time limit, Washington has waived both his right to proceed under Rule 29.15 and any claim that could be raised in such a motion.”). 3 Both Movant and the State have posited that the motion cou

2021Glover v. State, 477 S.W.3d 68, 73 (Mo.App. 2015).