Clamme v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Clamme v. State

814 S.W.2d 334, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339, 1991 WL 167062

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 29, 1991

DocketNo. 17192

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 814 S.W.2d 334 (Clamme 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

Clamme v. State, 814 S.W.2d 334, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339, 1991 WL 167062 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

MAUS, Judge.

Movant Jeffrey B. Clamme entered a plea of guilty to a charge of stealing, § 570.030, on March 13, 1985. Initially, he was placed on probation for five years and his sentence was suspended. Upon a probation violation, he was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and the court suspended execution of that sentence. Finally, on June 1, 1988, upon another probation violation, the court ordered movant’s sentence executed. On September 29, 1988, movant filed a motion for relief under Rule 24.035. On October 27, 1988, Public Defender S. Dean Price was appointed to represent movant. After repeated pro se demands by movant for some action, the following docket entry was made:

“7-27-90 Notice of Hearing filed. Case placed on September 12, 1990 Law Day Docket.”

Without explanation, the next docket entry reads as follows:

“8-31-90 Case called, Movant by Atty. Pope. Respondent by A.P.A. Kays. Court reviews record and transcript and finds and orders the motion dismissed without hearing.”

One of movant’s points on appeal is that the dismissal of his motion must be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel upon his motion. The state contends the dismissal was correct because sentence was pronounced before January 1, 1988, and the motion was not filed “on or before June 30, 1988” as required by Rule 24.035(1). At the time the docket entry was made, Thomas v. State, 808 S.W.2d 364 (Mo. banc 1991) had not been decided. That case involves circumstances similar to the circumstances in this case. In Thomas, at 365, the court held:

“We, therefore, hold that the time limitations imposed in Rule 24.035 begin to run when a person under sentence is delivered, physically, into the custody of the Department of Corrections.”

The record does not show when movant was delivered, physically, into the custody of the Department of Corrections. That date can be determined upon remand. If the motion was timely filed, the motion court can proceed as directed by Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1991). If it is determined the motion was not timely filed, that finding shall be entered of record and the motion dismissed. The judgment of dismissal is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FLANIGAN, C.J., and SHRUM, P.J., concur.

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

MAUS, Judge.

Movant Jeffrey B. Clamme entered a plea of guilty to a charge of stealing, § 570.030, on March 13, 1985. Initially, he was placed on probation for five years and his sentence was suspended. Upon a probation violation, he was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years and the court suspended execution of that sentence. Finally, on June 1, 1988, upon another probation violation, the court ordered movant’s sentence executed. On September 29, 1988, movant filed a motion for relief under Rule 24.035. On October 27, 1988, Public Defender S. Dean Price was appointed to represent movant. After repeated pro se demands by movant for some action, the following docket entry was made:

“7-27-90 Notice of Hearing filed. Case placed on September 12, 1990 Law Day Docket.”

Without explanation, the next docket entry reads as follows:

“8-31-90 Case called, Movant by Atty. Pope. Respondent by A.P.A. Kays. Court reviews record and transcript and finds and orders the motion dismissed without hearing.”

One of movant’s points on appeal is that the dismissal of his motion must be reversed because he received ineffective assistance of counsel upon his motion. The state contends the dismissal was correct because sentence was pronounced before January 1, 1988, and the motion was not filed “on or before June 30, 1988” as required by Rule 24.035(1). At the time the docket entry was made, Thomas v. State, 808 S.W.2d 364 (Mo. banc 1991) had not been decided. That case involves circumstances similar to the circumstances in this case. In Thomas, at 365, the court held:

“We, therefore, hold that the time limitations imposed in Rule 24.035 begin to run when a person under sentence is delivered, physically, into the custody of the Department of Corrections.”

The record does not show when movant was delivered, physically, into the custody of the Department of Corrections. That date can be determined upon remand. If the motion was timely filed, the motion court can proceed as directed by Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. banc 1991). If it is determined the motion was not timely filed, that finding shall be entered of record and the motion dismissed. The judgment of dismissal is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FLANIGAN, C.J., and SHRUM, P.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

814 S.W.2d 334, 1991 Mo. App. LEXIS 1339, 1991 WL 167062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clamme-v-state-moctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack