Robinson v. State, 012320 MOCAS, SD36065

Docket Nº:SD36065
Opinion Judge:GARY W. LYNCH, J.
Party Name:MARQUIS D. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.
Judge Panel:NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J., WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J. CONCURS
Case Date:January 23, 2020
Court:Court of Appeals of Missouri
 
FREE EXCERPT

MARQUIS D. ROBINSON, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.

No. SD36065

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, First Division

January 23, 2020

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY Honorable Robert D. Schollmeyer, Judge

GARY W. LYNCH, J.

Marquis D. Robinson ("Movant") sought and, following an evidentiary hearing, was denied post-conviction relief ("PCR") under Rule 29.15.1 The record on appeal establishes that a presumption arose in the motion court proceedings that Movant was abandoned. Because the record is not sufficient to show that the motion court conducted an independent inquiry and made findings susceptible to appellate review on the issue of abandonment, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the motion court.

Factual and Procedural Background

Following a jury trial, Movant was convicted of first-degree robbery, armed criminal action, and felonious restraint. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to two thirty- year imprisonment terms and one ten-year imprisonment term, respectively, all of which were ordered to run concurrently. This Court affirmed that judgment on direct appeal, see State v. Robinson, 379 S.W.3d 875 (Mo.App. 2012), by mandate issued on October 11, 2012.

On October 24, 2012, Movant filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment or sentence ("the initial PCR motion"), which included numerous claims generally alleging instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, constitutional violations, juror bias, witness perjury, and prosecutorial and police misconduct. The motion court then issued an order, on November 7, 2012, appointing "a public defender" to represent Movant. On December 3, 2012, assistant public defender Karl Hinkebein ("appointed counsel") entered his appearance on behalf of Movant and filed a request for a thirty-day extension of time in which to file an amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment or sentence. The record, however, contains no indication when or if appointed counsel's request for an extension of time was addressed or ruled upon.

Thereafter, on February 6, 2013, appointed counsel filed an amended motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment or sentence ("the amended PCR motion"). The claims contained in the amended PCR motion were limited to allegations of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.

Following an evidentiary hearing, the motion court issued, on January 14, 2019, its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order, and Judgment, denying each of the claims raised in the amended PCR motion.2 As part of the portion of that judgment reciting the procedural history of the case, the motion court...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP