Altic v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Altic v. State

521 S.W.3d 615, 2017 WL 587290, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 69

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 14, 2017

DocketNo. SD 34526

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 521 S.W.3d 615 (Altic v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Altic v. State, 521 S.W.3d 615, 2017 WL 587290, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 69 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Altic appeals the dismissal of his Rule 29.15 postconviction case. We need reach only his second of three points, which the state concedes, regarding failure to conduct an abandonment hearing per Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015).

Relevant dates are not in dispute. On August 14, 2014, Mr. Altic timely moved pro se for Rule 29.15 relief from a stealing conviction. Appointed counsel sought a 30-day extension for his amended motion, but there was no ruling of record, so the deadline remained November 7, rendering the November 10 amended motion untimely. See Patton v. State, 488 S.W.3d 143-44 (Mo.App. 2016); Frazee v. State, 480 S.W.3d 442, 445 (Mo.App. 2016); Rule 29.15(g).

When an amended motion is untimely, the motion court must independently inquire and determine whether abandonment occurred. Moore, 458 S.W.3d at 825. “In this case, the motion court did not make an independent inquiry into whether Mr. [Altic] was abandoned. When the independent inquiry is required but not done, this Court will remand the case because the motion court is the appropriate forum to conduct such an inquiry.” Id. at 826.

[616]*616We reverse and remand the case to the motion court to conduct a Moore abandonment inquiry, the result of which will determine which motion the court will adjudicate, id. and for further proceedings consistent with Rule 29.15.¹

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

PER CURIAM.

Mr. Altic appeals the dismissal of his Rule 29.15 postconviction case. We need reach only his second of three points, which the state concedes, regarding failure to conduct an abandonment hearing per Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015).

Relevant dates are not in dispute. On August 14, 2014, Mr. Altic timely moved pro se for Rule 29.15 relief from a stealing conviction. Appointed counsel sought a 30-day extension for his amended motion, but there was no ruling of record, so the deadline remained November 7, rendering the November 10 amended motion untimely. See Patton v. State, 488 S.W.3d 143-44 (Mo.App. 2016); Frazee v. State, 480 S.W.3d 442, 445 (Mo.App. 2016); Rule 29.15(g).

When an amended motion is untimely, the motion court must independently inquire and determine whether abandonment occurred. Moore, 458 S.W.3d at 825. “In this case, the motion court did not make an independent inquiry into whether Mr. [Altic] was abandoned. When the independent inquiry is required but not done, this Court will remand the case because the motion court is the appropriate forum to conduct such an inquiry.” Id. at 826.

[616]*616We reverse and remand the case to the motion court to conduct a Moore abandonment inquiry, the result of which will determine which motion the court will adjudicate, id. and for further proceedings consistent with Rule 29.15.¹

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 S.W.3d 615, 2017 WL 587290, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altic-v-state-moctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack