Goldberg v. State
| Decision Date | 09 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 109430,ED 109430 |
| Parties | Carl S. GOLDBERG, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
For Appellant: Matthew Palmer, 1000 W. Nifong Blvd., Columbia, MO 65202.
For Respondent: Evan J. Buchheim, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.
Carl S. Goldberg ("Goldberg") appeals from the motion court's judgment denying his Rule 24.0351 motion for post-conviction relief. In his sole point on appeal, Goldberg argues the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion because plea counsel was ineffective in failing to communicate Goldberg's acceptance of the State's plea offer before it was revoked. The core issue before us is the timeliness of Goldberg's filing. Because the motion court clearly erred in considering the merits of a claim that was untimely filed under the mandatory deadlines of Rule 24.035(b), we reverse the motion court's judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss.
The offense underlying this appeal involved the shooting death of Goldberg's father, Carl Maxwell ("Father"). The State's investigation alleged Goldberg had fraudulently taken large sums of money from Father before killing him. A friend of Goldberg's ("Friend") testified that he became suspicious when Goldberg asked him not to tell the neighbors about Father's death. The State arrested Goldberg and charged Goldberg with murder in the second degree and armed criminal action. Goldberg moved to have venue transferred from Marion County to Monroe County due to local media coverage, and the circuit court granted his motion.
While in custody, Goldberg informed police that he shot his Father with a hunting crossbow during an argument over the abuse Father inflicted on Goldberg as a child. Goldberg explained that he then placed Father's body in a freezer.
Following plea negotiations, Goldberg pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in an open plea before the court in Monroe County. The State agreed to dismiss the charge for armed criminal action. The plea court accepted Goldberg's plea, finding it was made knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charge, and with the knowledge of the range of punishment and consequences of the plea on his rights. The plea court ordered a sentencing assessment report ("SAR").
Hearings were thereafter continued and scheduled by agreement of the parties in Ralls County following technical difficulties with recording in Monroe County. At the sentencing hearing on June 7, 2018, in Ralls County, Goldberg presented a mitigation evaluation by Dr. Jacqueline Landess of St. Louis University ("Dr. Landess"), who conducted a psychiatric interview of Goldberg and reviewed his records. Dr. Landess concluded that Goldberg had suffered egregious abuse by Father as a child. Further, Dr. Landess's report detailed a life history of trauma and abuse. The court sentenced Goldberg to life in prison and informed Goldberg that his Rule 24.035 motion in the form of Criminal Procedure Form No. 40 "has to be filed with this Court within 180 days." The court explained that failure to file the motion within the time limits would constitute a complete waiver of his rights to proceed under Rule 24.035.
The motion court received Goldberg's pro se motion for post-conviction relief in Monroe County 307 days later on April 10, 2019. The motion court entered an order finding that Goldberg's Rule 24.035 motion was untimely filed. The motion court noted Goldberg alleged that he mistakenly filed a timely motion in Ralls County rather than Monroe County. The motion court found that, upon further inquiry, the court clerk of Ralls County stated no post-conviction motion was filed by Goldberg with the court in Ralls County. The motion court determined that, even though it appeared Goldberg's motion was untimely, the court would appoint post-conviction counsel to investigate Goldberg's motion.
Goldberg's amended motion raised three claims, one of which is the subject of his appeal. Goldberg argued plea counsel was ineffective for misadvising him about the plea offer. In particular, Goldberg averred that plea counsel did not tell him that the State's offer of a seven-year sentence in return for a plea of guilty to involuntary manslaughter could expire and that plea counsel failed to timely accept the offer on Goldberg's behalf before it was revoked. Regarding the timeliness of his pro se motion, Goldberg alleged in his amended motion that he timely mailed his pro se motion in September to Ralls County as directed by both plea counsel and the sentencing court. Goldberg alleged that another inmate later told him that he needed to file his pro se motion in the county where his case originated, and then he completed a new pro se motion and mailed it to Monroe County.
Goldberg moved to have his pro se motion considered as if timely filed due to third-party interference from plea counsel and the sentencing court. Goldberg alleged the sentencing court did not clarify he needed to file his post-conviction motion in Monroe County and that plea counsel gave him a piece of paper directing him to file his post-conviction motion in Ralls County. The motion court granted the motion to consider Goldberg's pro se motion timely filed.
The motion court conducted an evidentiary hearing on July 29, 2020. Plea counsel testified regarding the plea negotiations and produced case notes documenting her communications to Goldberg about the plea negotiations. Goldberg testified about the plea negotiations and his understanding of his plea colloquy. Goldberg presented no evidence at the hearing regarding the timeliness of his pro se motion.
Following the hearing, the motion court reaffirmed its finding that Goldberg's pro se motion was timely filed and denied Goldberg's Rule 24.035 motion on its merits. The motion court concluded that Goldberg failed to show how trial counsel's performance was deficient in that plea counsel informed Goldberg of all plea offers, and that Goldberg rejected the State's offer in favor of continuing negotiations. Goldberg now appeals.
In his sole point on appeal, Goldberg claims the motion court erred in denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief because plea counsel was ineffective in failing to communicate his acceptance of the State's plea offer before it was revoked.
Our review of a motion court's denial of a Rule 24.035 motion is limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k) ; Suber v. State, 516 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) (internal citation omitted). "The motion court's findings and conclusions are presumptively correct and will be overturned only when this Court, after reviewing the entire record, is left with a ‘definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made.’ " Arnold v. State, 509 S.W.3d 108, 112-13 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting Worthington v. State, 166 S.W.3d 566, 572 (Mo. banc 2005) ). We defer to the motion court's credibility determinations. Smith v. State, 413 S.W.3d 709, 715 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (internal citation omitted). "After a guilty plea, our review is limited to a determination of whether the movant's plea was knowing and voluntary." Arnold, 509 S.W.3d at 113 (internal citation omitted).
The State contends we should dismiss this appeal because Goldberg failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his untimely pro se Rule 24.035 motion was properly excused. Compliance with Rule 24.035 is not waivable, and it is our "duty to enforce the mandatory time limits and the resulting complete waiver in the post-conviction rules." Jackson v. State, 597 S.W.3d 449, 452 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (internal quotation omitted).
Following a guilty plea, Rule 24.035(b) prescribes the deadlines for filing an initial pro se motion for post-conviction relief. Kirk v. State, 590 S.W.3d 897, 901 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (internal citation omitted). The time limits for filing a pro se motion for post-conviction relief are mandatory. Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 268 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal citation omitted). Rule 24.035 provides that a motion for post-conviction relief "shall" be filed within either 90 or 180 days, and the failure to timely file results in a "complete waiver " of any right to proceed on the motion's merits. Rule 24.035(b) (emphasis added); Dorris, 360 S.W.3d at 266-67.
If the motion is sent to the sentencing court by first-class United States Mail and is addressed correctly with sufficient postage and deposited in the mail on or before the last day for filing the motion, the motion shall be deemed to be filed timely. A legible postmark affixed by the United States Postal Service shall be prima facie evidence of the date of the filing of the motion. Failure to file a motion within the time provided by this Rule 24.035 shall constitute a complete waiver of any right to proceed under this Rule 24.035 and a complete waiver of any claim that could be raised in a motion filed pursuant to this Rule 24.035.
Rule 24.035(b). "[A] movant's ignorance of the law is no excuse for the failure to assert timely claims for post-conviction relief." Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423, 431 (Mo. banc 2017) (internal citations omitted). The law is well settled that the movant bears the burden of proving the pro se motion was timely filed. Dorris, 360 S.W.3d at 267 ; Kirk, 590 S.W.3d at 902 (internal citations omitted).
Despite the seemingly absolute filing deadline for filing a pro se motion seeking post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035, "[t]he Supreme Court has, however, recognized that the untimeliness of a post[-]conviction relief motion will be excused where the untimeliness results from ‘the active interference of a third party beyond the inmate's control.’ " Kir...
To continue reading
Request your trial