Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Waring v. State

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, First Division

April 7, 2015

WALTER DEAN WARING, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CEDAR COUNTY. Honorable James R. Bickel, Judge.

For Appellant: Amy M. Bartholow.

For Respondent: Chris Koster and Andrew C. Hooper.

(Before Francis, P.J./C.J., Bates, J., and Scott, J.).

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Walter Waring timely filed an indigency affidavit and pro se motion for Rule 24.035 relief from his felony DWI convictions. The motion court summarily denied relief without appointing counsel for Waring,

Page 571

who claims this was error. The state agrees, as do we.

" When an indigent movant files a pro se motion, the court shall cause counsel to be appointed for the movant." Rule 24.035(e). Such appointment " is mandatory." Ramsey v. State, 438 S.W.3d 521, 522 (Mo.App. 2014). " A motion court that dismisses a pro se Rule 24.035 motion without appointing counsel commits clear error." Id. See also Wilson v. State, 415 S.W.3d 727, 728 (Mo.App. 2013).

We reverse, remand, and direct the motion court to appoint counsel for Waring and proceed further after that appointment. Id.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.