Carter v. State, 181 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
Carter v. State, 181 S.W.3d 78 (Mo. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Clayton Dean Price v. State of Missouri (mo, 2014-02-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clayton Dean Price v. State of Missouri
Mo. · 2014 · confidence medium
But, counsel then failed to file the motion. 1 See, e.g., Carter v. State, 181 S.W.3d 78, 79-80 (Mo. banc 2006); Nicholson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 369, 370-71 (Mo. banc 2004); Spells v. State, 213 S.W.3d 700, 701-02 (Mo. App. 2007). 2 As a result, as in this case, the McFadden court was faced with the difficult question of whether to treat counsel’s actions as abandonment or as ineffective assistance.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Conard v. Engel (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Consistent with the lack of a time limit in the Rule, numerous cases have held that an unsigned pleading may be cured under Rule 55.03(a) even after expiration of a time period during which the paper was required to be filed, and even if that time period is otherwise deemed “jurisdictional.” Carter v. State, 181 S.W.3d 78, 79-80 (Mo. banc 2006) (allowing post-conviction relief movant to cure failure to sign original pro se motion after expiration of time period under Rule 29.15 for the filing of a pro se motion, even though, at the time, Rule 29.15’s time deadlines were treated as jurisd…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Estate of Conard (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Consistent with the lack of a time limit in the Rule, numerous cases have held that an unsigned pleading may be cured under Rule 55.03(a) even after expiration of a time period during which the paper was required to be filed, and even if that time period is otherwise deemed "jurisdictional." Carter v. State, 181 S.W.3d 78, 79-80 (Mo. banc 2006) (allowing post-conviction relief movant to cure failure to sign original pro se motion after expiration of time period under Rule 29.15 for the filing of a pro se motion, even though, at the time, Rule 29.15's time deadlines were treated as jurisdiction…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hensel v. American Air Network, Inc.
Mo. · 2006 · confidence medium
Carter v. State, 181 S.W.3d 78, 79-80 (Mo. banc 2006).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Price v. State
Mo. · 2014 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Carter v. State, 181 S.W.3d 78, 79-80 (Mo. banc 2006); Nicholson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 369, 370-71 (Mo. banc 2004); Spells v. State, 213 S.W.3d 700, 701-02 (Mo.App.2007). .
Jessie CARTER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent
SC 87074.
Supreme Court of Missouri.
Jan 10, 2006.
181 S.W.3d 78
Scott H. Thompson, Office of the Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant., Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Shaun J. Mackelprang, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM. [1]

Jessie Carter’s convictions for first degree murder were affirmed on appeal. State v. Carter, 71 S.W.3d 267 (Mo.App.2002). The court of appeals mandate issued on April 15, 2002. Within 90 days after April 15, Carter’s post-conviction motion was due. Rule 29.15(b). The Jackson County Circuit Court initially filed Carter’s unsigned post-conviction motion on July 8, which is 84 days after the mandate issued. The Jackson County court forwarded Carter’s motion to Maries County, which was the proper venue. The Maries County court filed the motion on July 17, which was 93 days after the mandate issued. The Maries County court dismissed the motion as untimely filed. The motion, although unsigned, was timely filed. The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Standard of Review

Appellate review of the denial of a post-conviction motion is limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of law of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). Findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous if, after a review of the entire record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Johnson v. State, 102 S.W.3d 535, 537 (Mo. banc 2003).

Discussion

The state concedes that Nicholson v. State, 151 S.W.3d 369 (Mo. banc 2004), controls and Carter’s pro se motion is timely filed if the original motion was properly completed. [2] The state argues, however, that the motion court did not acquire jurisdiction of the original motion because Carter did not sign it. [3]

Carter did sign a timely filed amended motion. As noted in Wallingford v. State, 131 S.W.3d 781, 782 (Mo. banc 2004), Rule 55.03 applies to post-conviction motions. Rule 55.03(a) requires every motion to be signed by the party if filed pro se. An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected[*80] promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party. As in Wall-ingford, when Carter’s attorney called the lack of signature to Carter’s attention, it was corrected promptly by the filing of a properly signed amended motion. [4] Because the original motion was timely under Nicholson and Carter’s lack of signature was promptly corrected under Walling-ford, the motion court erred in dismissing the motion as untimely.

The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

All concur.
1

. After opinion by the Court of Appeals, Southern District, this Court ordered the case transferred. This Court has jurisdiction. Mo. Const. article V, section 10.

2

. The motion court did not have the benefit of Nicholson when it dismissed Carter’s motion.

3

. Carter did sign the in forma pauperis motion that was a part of the original Rule 29.15 motion.

4

. In Wallingford, the movant initially sought to correct the lack of signature four days after the amended motion was filed. Wallingford at 781.