McCampbell v. State, 58512
| Decision Date | 10 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 58512,58512 |
| Citation | 816 S.W.2d 681 |
| Parties | David McCAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ellen A. Blau, St. Louis, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Millie Aulbur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant, David A. McCampbell, pled guilty to one count of second degree murder, § 559.020, RSMo 1969, in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, pursuant to a plea bargain. On April 10, 1986, movant was sentenced to thirty years' imprisonment with this sentence to run concurrently with movant's sentences in the State of Florida. After completing his sentences in Florida, movant was delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections on January 8, 1990.
On February 13, 1990, movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion. An amended motion was filed on April 23, 1990. On April 25, 1990, the State filed a motion to dismiss movant's Rule 24.035 motion claiming that movant failed to file his motion within the time provided by the rule. The motion court sustained the State's motion and dismissed the case.
On appeal, this court followed Fincher v. State, 795 S.W.2d 505 (Mo.App., W.D.1990), and held that the movant's incarceration in Florida did not toll the filing period under Rule 24.035. Movant filed a motion for transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court and, on July 23, 1991, the Missouri Supreme Court granted transfer and then retransferred the case to this court for reconsideration in light of Thomas v. State, 808 S.W.2d 364, (Mo. banc 1991).
In Thomas, the defendant pled guilty to sexual assault in the first degree and was sentenced to four years in the Department of Corrections. Thomas, 808 S.W.2d at 364. The trial court then suspended execution of the sentence and placed the defendant on probation. Id. Approximately one year later, the trial court revoked the defendant's probation and executed the four year sentence. Id. The defendant then filed a Rule 24.035 motion which was decided by the motion court on the merits. Id. at 365.
On appeal, the appellate court held that the defendant's Rule 24.035 motion was untimely because it was not filed within ninety days of the defendant's sentencing. Id. The appellate court, consequently, dismissed the appeal. Id.
The Supreme Court of Missouri disagreed with the appellate court's interpretation of the time limits set forth in Rule 24.035, holding that, rather than beginning to run at sentencing, "the time limitations imposed in rule 24.035 begin to run when a person under sentence is delivered, physically, into the custody of the Department of Corrections." Id.
It is clear from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. Koster
...of the Missouri Department of Corrections." Palermo v. State, 823 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992) (quoting McCambell v. State, 816 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)); see also, State v. Ison, 270 S.W.3d 444, 446 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) ("[B]ecause [movant] was never committed to the Department......
-
Bandy v. State
...was revoked, its holding controlled in a case where the movant was not initially placed in Missouri custody. In McCampbell v. State, 816 S.W.2d 681, 682 (Mo.App.1991), the movant, who was sentenced in 1986 on a Missouri conviction, first completed a Florida sentence, then was transferred to......
-
Johnston v. State, 17864
...into the custody of the Department of Corrections." Id. at 365. Also see Clamme v. State, 814 S.W.2d 334 (Mo.App.1991); McCampbell v. State, 816 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1991); Hoover v. State, 819 S.W.2d 97 (Mo.App.1991); Palermo v. State, 823 S.W.2d 151 However, the action of the motion court i......
-
Palermo v. State, WD
...requirement began when Mr. Palermo was delivered into the custody of the Kansas Department of Corrections. The court in McCampbell v. State, 816 S.W.2d 681 (Mo.App.1991), addressed this issue. The movant in McCampbell was sentenced in Missouri to thirty years' imprisonment, which sentence w......