Scrivens v. State
| Decision Date | 02 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 36905,SD 36905 |
| Citation | 630 S.W.3d 917 |
| Parties | Shawn Henry SCRIVENS, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Attorney for Appellant – Samuel Buffaloe of Columbia, MO.
Attorneys for Respondent – Eric S. Schmitt (Attorney General), Karen Kramer of Jefferson City, MO.
Shawn Henry Scrivens ("Movant") pled guilty to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm,1 and subsequently filed a Rule 24.035 motion claiming that his plea was involuntary, unknowing and unintelligent because he was not receiving adequate medical care in the county jail while awaiting trial and thus was forced to plead guilty to get medical treatment.2 He now raises the same claim in this appeal. The motion court set forth the following colloquy at the plea hearing concerning the voluntariness of Movant's guilty plea in its findings of fact and conclusions of law:3
The motion court then stated:
The Court finds credible Movant's testimony at the plea hearing that he was pleading guilty because he believed he was guilty and not because of the lack of medical treatment. The Court finds that Movant's guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Relief under Claim 8(a) is denied.
We review a judgment overruling a Rule 24.035 motion to determine if the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. Booker v. State , 552 S.W.3d 522, 526 (Mo. banc 2018). The motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after reviewing the entire record, this Court is left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake was made. Id. ; Young v. State , 606 S.W.3d 237, 239-40 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020).
While it is true that during the plea hearing Movant complained about his medical treatment at the jail, it is also true that the court responded by conducting an intensive and thorough investigation into whether Movant would have pled guilty even if he had no complaints about his medical treatment in the jail.4 The plea judge made it clear that he would not accept a guilty plea unless he believed Movant was telling the truth and that the court was convinced that Movant was in fact making a voluntary plea. Movant assured him more than one time that he was pleading guilty voluntarily, and that, even if he had received adequate medical care, he would plead guilty.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the motion court's judgment are not clearly erroneous. We are not left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake was made.
The point is denied; the judgment is affirmed.
1 Movant was also charged with one count of unlawful use of a weapon, which was dismissed as part of the plea.
2 We have independently reviewed the timeliness of Movant's motions for post-conviction relief. See Moore v. State , 458 S.W.3d 822, 825-26 (Mo. banc 2015) ; Dorris v. State , 360 S.W.3d 260, 268 (Mo. banc 2012). Movant's pro se motion was filed timely; Movant's motion for a second extension to file an amended motion was filed on December 23, 2019, before the expiration of the first extension on December 30, 2019, but the motion court did not actually grant the motion for the second extension until January 17, 2020, which was after the expiration of the first extension; and Movant's amended motion actually was filed on January 29, 2020, which was the last day of the second extension as granted by the motion court. There appears to be a split of authority in the districts of this Court as to whether Movant's amended motion was filed timely. Based on our published decisions, we and the Eastern...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitt v. State
...did not grant the motion until after the deadline for filing the amended Rule 29.15 motion had expired. See Scrivens v. State , 630 S.W.3d 917, 918 n.2 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021) (concluding remand for abandonment inquiry unnecessary because counsel did not abandon movant, rather motion court fai......
-
Mack v. State
...two weeks before argument—which cited to two cases: Borschnack v. State , 614 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020) ; and Scrivens v. State , 630 S.W.3d 917 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021). Counsel's supplemental authority letter provided no explanation of the relevance of these cases, other than to state t......
-
Mack v. State
...appointment or notice of an appointment, the time for the filing of Mack's amended motion undoubtedly began to run on March 4, 2019. Nor is Scrivens controlling here. In a lengthy footnote, Scrivens refuses to follow decisions of this District of the Court of Appeals, which has held that a ......
-
Ransom v. State
...version of Rule 29.15 governs this case.2 The Southern District of this Court recently reached a different result in Scrivens v. State , 630 S.W.3d 917 (Mo. App. S.D. 2021), in which it held that a motion court may grant an extension after the initial filing period has expired. Scrivens , 6......