Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, First Division
ANTHONY L. CARROLL, Movant/Appellant,
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Honorable Jimmie M. Edwards.
FOR APPELLANT: Kent Denzel, Columbia, Missouri.
FOR RESPONDENT: Shaun J. Mackelprang, Jefferson City, Missouri.
Lisa S. Van Amburg, Judge. Lawrence E. Mooney, P. J. and Clifford H. Ahrens, J. concur.
Lisa S. Van Amburg, Judge.
Anthony Carroll appeals from the trial court's judgment dismissing, without an evidentiary hearing, his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The court found Carroll's motion to be untimely filed. We reverse and remand.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2005, a jury convicted Carroll of one count of first-degree robbery, in violation of Section 569.020;  two counts of forcible sodomy, in violation of section 566.060; three counts of armed criminal action, in violation of section 571.015; one count of first-degree burglary, in violation of section 569.160; and one count of misdemeanor stealing, in violation of section 570.030. The court found Carroll to be a prior offender under section 558.016, and sentenced him to a consecutive term of 160 years' imprisonment. On appeal, we affirmed Carroll's conviction in State v. Carroll, 207 S.W.3d 140 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006), issuing our mandate on December 28, 2006.
Under Rule 29.15(b), Carroll had to file his motion for post-conviction relief within 90 days of the issuance of our mandate affirming his convictions and sentences. The 90-day time period for filing a timely Rule 29.15 motion expired on March 28, 2007. Nearly eight months later, on November 15, 2007, the circuit court received from Carroll an untimely pro se Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. In October 2010, Carroll's court-appointed counsel filed an amended Rule 29.15 motion alleging
Carroll received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. In his amended motion, Carroll also claimed that he timely mailed his original pro se motion on March 15, 2007, and that the motion court timely received that motion on March 19, 2007, however the court lost " the majority of [Carroll]'s motion," so he refiled the motion in November 2007. The State filed a motion to dismiss Carroll's Rule 29.15 motion on the grounds that it was untimely, because the amended ...