Watson v. State, SC 95665
| Decision Date | 02 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 95665,SC 95665 |
| Citation | 520 S.W.3d 423 |
| Parties | Bruce WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Matthew W. Huckeby, Public Defender's Office, St. Louis, for Appellant.
Shaun J. Mackelprang, Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City, for Respondent.
Bruce Watson (hereinafter, "Watson") was convicted by a jury of first-degree robbery and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. At Watson's sentencing hearing, the circuit court misinformed him about the time deadlines to file his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion. Watson's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, State v. Watson , 397 S.W.3d 539 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013), and the court of appeals issued its mandate. Watson filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief approximately sixteen months later despite Rule 29.15(b)'s requirement that it be filed within ninety days of the mandate's issuance. The motion court overruled Watson's motion without an evidentiary hearing. Watson appeals.
This Court holds that Watson's Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion was filed untimely. However, Watson's untimeliness is excused because the circuit court misinformed him about the appropriate deadline to file his motion during his sentencing colloquy. The Court further holds the motion court clearly erred in overruling Watson's Rule 29.15 motion because Watson demonstrated he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing concerning trial counsel's strategy for failing to request a lesser-included offense instruction. The case is reversed, and the cause is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
On July 11, 2009, Watson entered a Check N' Go store where Yulena Shull (hereinafter, "Shull") was working. When Shull asked Watson if she could help him, Watson reached around another customer, tossed a blue plastic grocery bag onto the counter and told Shull to fill up the bag. Watson walked around the counter, reached into his pocket, and quickly flashed what Shull believed to be a gun at her. Shull emptied the contents of her cash drawer into the grocery bag. Watson left the store, and Shull contacted the police. Watson was arrested and charged with one count of first-degree robbery and armed criminal action. The jury convicted Watson of first-degree robbery but acquitted him of armed criminal action.
At sentencing, when the circuit court asked Watson if there was any legal reason why he should not be sentenced, Watson answered, "I wasn't properly represented." After the circuit court sentenced Watson to serve fifteen years' imprisonment, the circuit court informed Watson of his post-conviction relief rights pursuant to Rule 29.07(b). The circuit court stated, "In order to obtain review of your conviction and sentence, you must file a verified Criminal Procedure Form Number 40 within 180 days after your delivery to the Missouri Department of Corrections; otherwise, you waive or give up your rights under Rule 29.15." Watson indicated he understood his rights. Watson listed grievances he had with trial counsel's representation, which included wanting to plead guilty to a lesser charge but being forced to go to trial.
Watson's conviction was affirmed on April 23, 2013. On May 15, 2013, the court of appeals issued its mandate. More than sixteen months later, on October 2, 2014, Watson filed his initial pro se motion for post-conviction relief. Watson's pro se motion stated he was sentenced on March 9, 2012, and "was instructed not to file this cause until [he] was delivered to the [department of corrections] by the courts making this cause timely."
The motion court appointed counsel, who subsequently filed an amended motion. Watson's amended motion attempted to explain the tardiness of his pro se filing. Watson averred that he was never delivered to the department of corrections to serve his sentence. The record reflected that before the robbery trial, Watson was charged with a separate criminal offense. In lieu of being delivered to the department of corrections after the robbery conviction, Watson was detained in the Saint Louis City Justice Center to undergo a pretrial psychiatric examination to determine his competency to stand trial for the separate offense. On August 4, 2014, Watson was adjudicated incompetent to stand trial for the separate offense and ordered committed to the custody of the department of mental health. The separate offense had not yet been disposed of at the time of Watson's pro se filing.
Watson requested that the motion court find his pro se motion timely because the circuit court misinformed him during sentencing regarding the deadline to file his motion. Watson understood the circuit court's statement to mean that his motion was not due until 180 days after he was delivered to the department of corrections. Because he was never delivered to the department of corrections, Watson was under the impression that the deadline to file his pro se motion had not passed. Watson only discovered his tardiness after speaking to another inmate about his case. Watson also contended there was a genuine issue as to whether he understood his rights under Rule 29.15 because he was adjudicated incompetent. Finally, Watson's amended motion alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to submit lesser-included offense instructions for second-degree robbery and felony stealing.
The motion court recognized Watson's Rule 29.15 motion was filed untimely. The motion court further stated the circuit court was not required to inform a movant of the time limits, and a failure to inform a movant does not override the rule's mandatory time limits. However, the motion court found Watson's case did not involve the circuit court's failure to advise him of the time limit but, rather, involved a misrepresentation about the time limit. The motion court stated it would address the merits of Watson's claim out of an abundance of caution. The motion court overruled Watson's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding Watson was not entitled to a second-degree robbery instruction where there was evidence presented that Watson used or threatened the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument during the course of the robbery. Watson now appeals.
This Court reviews the denial of post-conviction relief to determine whether the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(k). "A judgment is clearly erroneous when, in light of the entire record, the court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made."Swallow v. State , 398 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 2013).
This Court must determine first whether it has the authority to address the merits of Watson's Rule 29.15 motion because his pro se motion was filed untimely. Rule 29.15(b) provides in part:
If an appeal of the judgment or sentence sought to be vacated, set aside or corrected was taken, the motion shall be filed within 90 days after the date the mandate of the appellate court is issued affirming such judgment or sentence. If no appeal of such judgment or sentence was taken, the motion shall be filed within 180 days of the date the person is delivered to the custody of the department of corrections.
Because Watson sought an appeal from the circuit court's judgment and sentence, his Rule 29.15 motion should have been filed ninety days after the court of appeals issued its mandate, which occurred May 15, 2013. Therefore, Watson's initial pro se motion was due on or before August 13, 2013, but was filed on October 2, 2014, approximately sixteen months after the mandate issued.
In addition to proving his substantive claim, Watson must show he filed his Rule 29.15 motion within the time limits provided therein. Dorris v. State , 360 S.W.3d 260, 267 (Mo. banc 2012). The time limits for filing a Rule 29.15 motion are mandatory. D a y v. St a te , 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989) ; Eastburn v. State , 400 S.W.3d 770, 773 (Mo. banc 2013). Generally, when movants fail to file their Rule 29.15 motions within the applicable time limits, there is a complete waiver of the right to seek post-conviction relief and a complete waiver regarding all claims that could be raised in a Rule 29.15 motion. Moore v. State , 328 S.W.3d 700, 702 (Mo. banc 2010). Because Watson's pro se motion was filed untimely, he must allege facts showing "and proving by a preponderance of the evidence in his motion that he falls within a recognized exception to the time limits." Dorris , 360 S.W.3d at 267. While Rule 29.15 does not carve out exceptions that excuse late filings, Missouri courts recognize two exceptions: "(1) when post-conviction counsel abandons the movant; and (2) when rare circumstances outside the movant's control justify late receipt of the motion." Moore , 328 S.W.3d at 702.
Watson does not claim post-conviction counsel abandoned him. Instead, Watson asserts the circuit court's misinformation constituted rare circumstances that justify his failure to prepare and send his original motion in a timely manner. Watson requests this Court find the circuit court's misinformation regarding the correct filing deadline justifies creation of a new exception to Rule 29.15's mandatory filing deadlines.
Rule 29.07(b)(4) provides in pertinent part:
If a defendant has a right to proceed under ... Rule 29.15, the court at the conclusion of final sentencing shall advise the defendant of such right and shall examine the defendant as to the assistance of counsel received by the defendant. The examination shall be on the record and may be conducted outside the presence of the defendant's counsel. At the conclusion of the examination the court shall determine whether probable cause exists to believe the defendant has received ineffective assistance of counsel.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.C.M. v. Pemiscot Cnty. Juvenile Office
...and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney under similar circumstances, and (2) he was prejudiced by this failure. Watson v. State , 520 S.W.3d 423, 435 (Mo. banc 2017). Prejudice requires a showing of "a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result......
-
Sprofera v. State
...that the decision not to request the instruction was not reasonable trial strategy, and that prejudice resulted.’ " Watson v. State , 520 S.W.3d 423, 435 (Mo. 2017) (quoting McCrady v. State , 461 S.W.3d 443, 448 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) ).Besides asserting that Sprofera's claim was not cogniza......
-
Polk v. State
...left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made." Swallow v. State , 398 S.W.3d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 2013). Watson v. State , 520 S.W.3d 423, 428 (Mo. banc 2017).DiscussionPolk raises six Points on appeal. He first argues that trial counsel Anthony Cardarella completely fa......
-
Steele v. State
...made after a thorough investigation of the law and the facts relevant to plausible opinions are virtually unchallengeable[.]" Watson v. State, 520 S.W.3d 423, 435 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28, 33 (Mo. banc 2006) ).The movant must also demonstrate prejudice under......