Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, First Division
DARON J. PARKER, Appellant,
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.
from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County 14SL-CC03759
Honorable John D. Warner, Jr. Judge.
P. PAGE, JUDGE.
J. Parker ("Defendant") appeals the judgment of the
motion court denying, without an evidentiary hearing, his
Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We reverse and
remand because Defendant's amended motion was untimely
filed, and the motion court did not conduct an independent
was charged with one count of assault in the first degree, in
violation of Section 565.050, and one count of armed criminal
action, in violation of section 571.015. Two attorneys
(together, "Plea Counsel") entered appearances on
behalf of Defendant.
18, 2014, Defendant appeared in court with Plea Counsel and
pleaded guilty to both charges, pursuant to a plea agreement.
During the plea hearing, the court questioned Defendant about
Plea Counsel's performance, and found no evidence to
indicate either of the attorneys were ineffective. Defendant
was sentenced to nine years for the assault and three years
for the armed criminal action, the sentences to run
October 16, 2014, Defendant timely filed a pro se
Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief. On December 8,
the transcripts of the guilty plea and sentencing hearing
were filed. On December 19, the motion court appointed the
Missouri State Public Defender's Office to represent
Defendant. On January 9, 2015, "PCR Counsel"
entered her appearance and requested an additional thirty
days to file an amended motion, which the court granted. PCR
Counsel filed the amended motion on March 25, 2015.
amended motion raised one claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel, based on Plea Counsel's alleged conflict of
interest-a claim that was distinct from Defendant's
pro se motion. The court denied the claim without an
evidentiary hearing. This appeal follows.
offers one point on appeal. However, we do not reach the
merits as we reverse and remand for the trial court to
conduct an abandonment inquiry.
to addressing the merits regarding a movant's
post-conviction appeal, this court is obligated to, sua
sponte, "first examine the timeliness of amended
motions in each postconviction case on appeal, even if the
issue is not raised by either party." Lomax v.
State, 471 S.W.3d 358, 359 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (citing
Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015)).
Overview of ...