Belfield v. State
| Decision Date | 19 April 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 93559.,ED 93559. |
| Citation | 307 SW 3d 680 |
| Parties | Michael G. BELFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Michael G. BELFIELD, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 93559.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
March 16, 2010.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 19, 2010.
Michael G. Belfield, Licking, MO, pro se.
Chris Koster, Attorney General, Jamie Pamela Rasmussen, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
KURT S. ODENWALD, Presiding Judge.
Introduction
Michael Belfield (Movant) appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.151 motion for post-conviction relief. Finding no clear error in the motion court's ruling, we affirm.
Background
On November 26, 2003, the State indicted Movant for murder and armed criminal action. On May 17, 2006, Movant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, in violation of Section 565.020 RSMo 2000,2 and armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015.1, in the Circuit Court of Franklin County. On July 17, 2006, Movant was sentenced to concurrent terms of life without parole for the murder offense and three years of imprisonment for the armed criminal conviction.
On July 17, 2006, Movant also timely filed a notice of appeal. On August 7, 2007, this Court affirmed Movant's conviction and sentence in State v. Belfield, 230 S.W.3d 635 (Mo.App. E.D.2007). On September 5, 2007, this Court issued a mandate affirming the judgment and sentence. Movant asserts that his post-conviction counsel filed a post-conviction relief motion on his behalf on December 3, 2007. However, movant presents no evidence, including docket sheets, court records, or mailing evidence, that a December 3, 2007 post-conviction motion was actually filed.
On January 8, 2008, Movant filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. On February 1, 2008, the Franklin County Circuit Court denied Movant's pro se motion because it was not timely filed pursuant to the applicable time limitation set forth in Rule 29.15.
Points on Appeal
In his first point on appeal, Movant argues that he filed a timely but unverified motion for post-conviction relief, but that he was not notified as to defects in his
motion. In his second point on appeal, Movant argues that the motion court did not allow him to correct a defect in the signature block of his motion. These two points will be addressed jointly.
Standard of Review
Review of a motion court's denial of a "motion to reopen postconviction proceedings is limited to a determination of whether the motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous." Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 56 (Mo. en banc 2009). Clear error occurs where a review of the entire record leaves the reviewing court with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Id. at 56-57.
Discussion
A motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial