Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Criminal Law: Post-Conviction Relief-Pro Se Inmate Motion-Timeliness

Staff Report//January 12, 2024//

Criminal Law: Post-Conviction Relief-Pro Se Inmate Motion-Timeliness

Staff Report//January 12, 2024//

Listen to this article

Where a defendant challenged the dismissal of his pro se post-conviction motion arguing that the motion court clearly erred in failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law and in dismissing the case in a docket entry, and the defendant also argued that the court erred by failing to conduct a hearing on the allegations of timely filing as submitted in the defendant’s letter, the defendant’s use of a separate blank page to detail the timeliness of his original pro se motion was reasonable, and it was error for the motion court to fail to consider the letter as a sufficient pleading of timeliness.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Martin v. State (MLW No. 80977/Case No. SD37544 – 10 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Goodman, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Greene County, Mountjoy, J. (Elizabeth Unger Carlyle, Kansas City, MO for appellant) (Karen Louise Kramer, Jefferson City, for respondent).


Latest Opinion Digests

See all digests

Top stories

See more news