Fields v. State

• Citation: 541 S.W.3d 45
• Decision Date: 27 February 2018
• Docket Number: WD 80531
• Parties: Tausha FIELDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

541 S.W.3d 45

Tausha FIELDS, Appellant,

v.STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80531

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

FILED: February 27, 2018

James W. Schottel, Jr., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Two: James E. Welsh, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.

Alok Ahuja, Judge

In 2010, Appellant Tausha Fields was found guilty of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action following a jury trial. We affirmed Fields' convictions on direct appeal in 2012.

Over four years later, Fields filed a motion seeking post-conviction relief. To justify the untimely filing of her motion, Fields alleged that, because she was experiencing difficulties with the prison mail system, her direct-appeal counsel offered to file her pro se post-conviction relief motion for her. She alleged that she forwarded her pro se motion to counsel for filing, but that the motion was not timely filed due to counsel's unexpected, debilitating medical issues.

The circuit court dismissed Fields' motion as untimely without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Fields appeals. Because we conclude that Fields' motion adequately alleged that "active third-party interference" prevented the timely filing of her pro se post-conviction relief motion, we reverse, and remand for further proceedings.

Factual Background

In 2010, Fields was convicted following a jury trial of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the Circuit Court of Boone County. The court sentenced Fields to life without the possibility of parole for murder, and twenty years' imprisonment for armed criminal action. We affirmed Fields' convictions on direct appeal. State v. Morton , 384 S.W.3d 343 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (mem. ).¹ Our mandate issued on December 20, 2012.

Under Supreme Court Rule 29.15(b), Fields' post-conviction motion was due 90 days after the issuance of our mandate, meaning that the deadline for filing her initial motion was March 20, 2013.

Fields filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside and Correct Judgment and Sentence in the Circuit Court of Boone County on January 4, 2017, contending that she received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in multiple respects. Besides asserting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the January 2017 Motion also sought to justify Fields' failure to file a timely Rule 29.15 motion in 2013. Fields alleged that, "[d]uring the 90 days leading up to the deadline for the filing of the 29.15 Motion," she was confined in administrative segregation at the Chillicothe Correctional Center. The Motion alleged that, while in administrative segregation, Fields "had been experiencing problems with regular mail," although she "did not experience problems with her legal mail, sent to and received from her [direct-appeal] counsel." The Motion alleged that, "[a]s a result of [Fields'] difficulties with mail getting to its destination, prior to February 6, 2013, [Fields'] [direct-appeal] counsel agreed to file [Fields'] pro se 29.15 Motion prepared by [Fields] prior to the March 20, 2013 deadline." The Motion alleged that Fields mailed her pro se motion to her direct-appeal counsel prior to the March 20, 2013 deadline.

Fields' Motion alleged that her direct-appeal counsel, who is quadriplegic, was scheduled for surgery on February 6, 2013. The Motion alleged that Fields' direct-appeal counsel "had no reason to believe that he would have additional health issues after the February 6, 2013 surgery leading to an extended medical absence from his office." The Motion alleged, however, that after counsel's February 6, 2013 surgery, "counsel unexpectedly was bed ridden for several weeks." The Motion also alleged that, "[a]s a result of [Fields'] [direct-appeal] counsel's physical incapacitation from his February 6, 2013 [surgery], he was unable to timely file [the] pro se 29.15 Motion prepared by [Fields] prior to the March 20, 2013 deadline." The Motion asserted that, because she was in administrative segregation, Fields did not have telephone access to call counsel, and therefore was unaware of the status of her pro se motion until after the March 20, 2013 deadline had passed.²

Along with her Motion, Fields filed a Memorandum in Support of the Motion. In the Memorandum, Fields argued that her failure to timely file a pro se postconviction relief motion was excused, because her case involved the "rare circumstance" in which " ‘an inmate writes his initial post-conviction motion and takes every step he reasonably can within the limitations of his confinement to see that the motion is filed on time, [but] the active interference of a third party beyond the inmate's control frustrates those efforts and renders the inmate's motion untimely.’ " (Quoting Gunn v. State , 484 S.W.3d 106, 109 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015), in turn quoting Price v. State , 422 S.W.3d 292, 302 (Mo. banc 2014).)

A week after the filing of Fields' Motion, and without receiving a response from the State, the circuit court entered an order stating that Fields' Motion was "dismissed without prejudice as not being timely filed."

Fields appeals.

Standard of Review

Appellate review of a motion court's dismissal of a postconviction relief motion is limited to determining whether the findings and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. A motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous if this Court "is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made" after a review of the entire record.

Propst v. State , 535 S.W.3d 733 (Mo. banc 2017) (citations omitted); see also Rule 29.15(k).

Analysis³

Under Rule 29.15(b), where an offender is convicted of a felony after trial and appeals his conviction, a post-conviction motion must be filed within 90 days after the date on which this Court issues its mandate in the direct appeal. Rule 29.15(b) expressly provides that "[f]ailure to file a motion within the time provided by this Rule 29.15 shall constitute a complete waiver of any right to proceed under this Rule 29.15 and a complete waiver of any claim that could be raised in a motion filed pursuant to this Rule 29.15."

The Missouri Supreme Court has held that a post-conviction relief movant has the burden of pleading, and proving, either that movant's motion was timely filed, or that the untimeliness of the motion is otherwise excused.

In a motion filed pursuant to Rule 29.15, the movant must allege facts showing a basis for relief to entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing. The movant also must allege facts establishing that the motion is timely filed. The movant then must prove his allegations.... The movant must allege facts showing he timely filed his motion and meet his burden of proof by either: (1) timely filing the original pro se motion so that the time stamp on the file reflects that it is within the time limits proscribed in the Rule; (2) alleging and proving by a preponderance of the evidence in his motion that he falls within a recognized exception to the time limits; or (3) alleging and proving by a preponderance of the evidence in his amended motion that the court misfiled the motion.

Dorris v. State , 360 S.W.3d 260, 267 (Mo. banc 2012) (citations omitted).

In this case, Fields concedes that she failed to file a timely post-conviction relief motion. She contends, however, that the circumstances alleged in her motion invoke a judicially recognized exception to Rule 29.15(b)'s time limits: where the timely filing of the motion is prevented by the "active interference" of a third party. Under the "active interference" exception,

where an inmate writes his initial post-conviction motion and takes every step he reasonably can within the limitations of his confinement to see that the motion is filed on time, a motion court may excuse the inmate's tardiness when the active interference of a third party beyond the inmate's control frustrates those efforts and renders the inmate's motion untimely.

Price v. State , 422 S.W.3d 292, 302 (Mo. banc 2014) ; accord , Henson v. State , 518 S.W.3d 828, 835 (Mo. App. S.D. 2017). This "active interference" exception "arises out of the practical reality that an inmate cannot comply with Rule 29.15 without relying on a third party to some extent." Price , 422 S.W.3d at 302.

The Missouri Supreme Court applied the "active interference" exception in a similar situation in McFadden v. State , 256 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. banc 2008). As the Court explained in Price , 422 S.W.3d at 303–04, in McFadden the inmate completed his pro se motion prior to the filing deadline, and mailed it to his trial counsel, who had told the inmate to do so. "The inmate did as he was instructed and, even though the public defender received the inmate's initial motion two weeks before the Rule 29.15(b) deadline, she failed to file the inmate's motion on time." Price , 422 S.W.3d at 304 (citing McFadden , 256 S.W.3d at 109 ). In these circumstances,

McFadden finds that the inmate "did all he could to express an intent to seek relief under Rule 29.15" and would have filed his motion on time but for the active interference of a third party .... [256 S.W.3d] at 108, 109.

The record shows Mr. McFadden timely prepared his motion for post-conviction relief and provided this motion to his counsel well before it was due to the court. Counsel, however, actively interfered with the timely filing and, despite her receipt of Mr. McFadden's motion for postconviction relief on September 28, 2006, she did not file his motion until October 12, 2006, one day after the filing date.

Id. On the basis of these "unique circumstances," the Court held that the inmate was entitled to proceed notwithstanding his tardy filing. Id.

Price , 422 S.W.3d at 304 (emphasis added by Price ; footnote omitted). Price explained that, although the third person who failed to timely file the motion in McFadden was the inmate's attorney, "the central issue in McFadden is not the existence of an attorney-client relationship...