Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 03 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | Jonah JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. 44335. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
David S. Durbin, Appellate Defender, Jeanne Haas McKenna, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before LOWENSTEIN, C.J., P.J., and FENNER and HANNA, JJ.
Movant appeals from the dismissal of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely filed. The judgment is affirmed.
Movant pleaded guilty on May 2, 1989, to felonious stealing and interfering with an arrest. §§ 570.030 and 575.150 RSMo 1 On May 12, 1989, the court sentenced movant to consecutive terms of fifteen and three years imprisonment, respectively.
Movant filed his pro se Rule 24.035 motion on August 29, 1990, over a year after he was delivered to the Department of Corrections. Counsel was appointed and an amended motion was filed November 19, 1990. The state moved to dismiss movant's motion, arguing that the movant waived his rights to proceed under Rule 24.035 by failing to file the motion within ninety days after his delivery to the Department of Corrections. Rule 24.035(b). On December 3, 1990, the trial court made detailed findings of fact on movant's failure to timely file his motion and the court dismissed movant's motion.
In his first point, movant alleges that the motion court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues, specifically the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that Rule 24.035(i) requires the court to make such findings.
Mr. Johnson was delivered to the Department of Corrections on May 24, 1989. Rule 24.035(b) allows movant ninety days after the movant is delivered to the custody of the department of corrections (until August 22, 1989) in which to file a motion under the rule. Movant's failure to file a motion within the time provided by the Rule constituted a complete waiver of his right to proceed thereunder. Suman v. State, 783 S.W.2d 525, 526 (Mo.App.1990), Rule 24.035(b). By failing to timely file his post-conviction motion under Rule 24.035, he waived any right to require findings on the merits of his allegations. The court is only required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law sufficient to support the dismissal of the motion on the basis of timeliness. Since timeliness was the dispositive issue of this case nothing else was before the court.
The appellate court's review is limited to a determination of whether the lower court's findings were "clearly erroneous." Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141, Rule 24.035(j). The limited findings on the issue of timeliness are sufficient to determine the basis of the dismissal and to allow appellate review of the case. Grove v. State, 772 S.W.2d 390, 395, 396 (Mo.App.1989). The first point is denied.
Movant next argues that these time constraints for filing are arbitrary, capricious and violated his constitutional rights. The case law interpreting Rule 29.15 and Rule 24.035 is clear. It is indisputable that the time constraints of Rule 24.035 are constitutionally valid and are mandatory by their terms. Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d at 695. The time limitations are reasonable, and serve the legitimate end of avoiding delay in the processing of claims. Id. These time limits do not violate the movant's right to due process. Kendrick v. State, 804 S.W.2d 386, 387 (Mo.App.1991). They do not constitute a suspension of the right to relief under habeas corpus. White v. State, 779 S.W.2d 571, 573 (Mo. banc 1989). Moreover, movant does not suggest any legitimate grounds for relief from the rule's rigid time constraints. See Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495, 498 (Mo. banc 1991) (absolutely no activity by appointed motion counsel); and Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Mo. banc 1991) (dereliction of motion counsel).
Movant's citation to Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nimrod v. State
...it was without jurisdiction, was clearly erroneous. See Eberspacher v. State, 915 S.W.2d 384, 386 (Mo. App. 1996); Johnson v. State, 818 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Mo. App. 1991). At the time of the two guilty pleas in 1981, Rule 27.26 provided post-conviction relief for a defendant convicted by tria......
-
Marschke v. State, WD
...695 (Mo. banc 1989). The Rule 24.035 time constraints are constitutionally valid and are mandatory by their terms. Johnson v. State, 818 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Mo.App. W.D.1991). Marschke failed to plead or prove that his motion was timely filed. The motion court technically erred by entertaining......
-
Reynolds v. State, WD
...is reasonable, mandatory, and valid, and satisfies the requirements of due process. See, e.g., Day, 770 S.W.2d at 695; Johnson v. State, 818 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Mo.App.1991). Further, the time limit for filing Rule 24.035 motions is strictly enforced and failure to file a Rule 24.035 motion wi......
-
Day v. State
...(Mo. banc 1991). Furthermore, the time limitation in Rule 24.035(b) does not violate a movant's right to due process. Johnson v. State, 818 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Mo.App.1991). Movant disputes neither the date of his delivery to prison nor the date his motion was filed. Certainly, the motion cour......