Lamont Campbell v. State of Missouri

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 18, 2021
DocketED108624
StatusPublished

This text of Lamont Campbell v. State of Missouri (Lamont Campbell v. State of Missouri) 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
Lamont Campbell v. State of Missouri, (Mo. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION ONE

LAMONT CAMPBELL, ) No. ED108624 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the City of St. Louis vs. ) 1922-CC10779 ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Honorable Timothy J. Boyer ) Respondent. ) Filed: May 18, 2021

Lamont Campbell (“Appellant”) appeals the judgment dismissing his Rule 29.151 motion

for post-conviction relief as untimely filed. Because Appellant has failed to file a timely notice

of appeal and has failed to request this Court for a special order to file a notice of appeal out of

time under Rule 30.03,2 we dismiss Appellant’s appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder (Count I) and armed

criminal action (Count II). The trial court entered a judgment in accordance with the jury’s

verdicts. The court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment with eligibility for parole for

Count I and to twenty years of imprisonment for Count II, with the sentences to run concurrently.

1 All references to Rule 29.15 are to the version of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 effective from January 1, 2018 to the present. 2 All references to Rule 30.03 are to the version of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 30.03 effective from January 1, 1980 to the present. Rule 30.03, which is set out in full in Section II. of this opinion, allows a defendant or the state having the right of appeal to seek leave to file a notice of appeal out of time within twelve months after a judgment becomes final. See Rule 30.03. This Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences on direct appeal in State v.

Campbell, 558 S.W.3d 554, 556-64 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). The mandate was issued on

September 13, 2018. Thus, Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15(b) required Appellant to file his

motion for post-conviction relief by December 12, 2018.3 More than six months later, on July 1,

2019, Appellant filed his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.4

Appellant’s Rule 29.15 motion did not allege any facts showing the untimely filing

should be excused. Appellant’s motion also included a completed forma pauperis affidavit

containing Appellant’s notarized signature. The motion court did not subsequently appoint post-

conviction counsel for Appellant. On August 6, 2019, the motion court entered a judgment

dismissing Appellant’s Rule 29.15 motion as untimely filed.

Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal on December 27, 2019. Appellant’s

notice of appeal was accompanied by a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On January 21, 2020, the Clerk’s Office of this Court advised Appellant by letter that his

notice of appeal “was not complete.” The letter specifically advised Appellant the Missouri

Supreme Court had adopted new forms that were effective January 1, 2017, and the letter

directed Appellant to “[p]lease fill out the [n]ew [n]otice of [a]ppeal [f]orms and [r]eturn to this

office by February 5, 2020.” On February 3, 2020, Appellant, acting pro se, filed the correct

notice of appeal forms with Clerk’s Office of this Court. An attorney with the Missouri State

3 Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15(b) provides that if a movant, like Appellant, files a direct appeal and an appellate court affirms his convictions and sentences, his motion for post-conviction relief “shall be filed within 90 days after the date the mandate of the appellate court issues . . ..” In this case, 90 days from September 13, 2018 was Wednesday, December 12, 2018. 4 On November 26, 2018, the Circuit Clerk’s Office for the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis (“Circuit Clerk’s Office”) file stamped a pro se pleading from Appellant dated November 20, 2018. In this pleading, Appellant requested “a time extension to submit [his] Form 40/29[.]15 [motion] due to the fact” Appellant was allegedly “in the hole (administrative segregation)” and did not “have access to [his] legal documents/Form 40/29[.]15 paperwork” since November 10, 2018; Appellant alleged he had “requested the prison staff to give” him his legal paperwork but that “they [had] refused”; and Appellant asked for the Circuit Clerk’s Office to mail him a blank Form 40 “just in case [he] need[ed] to fill it out and file it again.” Subsequently, Appellant sent his Rule 29.15 motion to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, and the motion was filed stamped by the Circuit Clerk’s Office on July 1, 2019. 2 Public Defender’s Office entered her appearance for Appellant on July 13, 2020. Oral argument

and submission of this appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

Post-conviction motions filed pursuant to Rule 29.15 are “governed by the [Missouri

Supreme Court] [Rules of [C]ivil [P]rocedure insofar as applicable.” Rule 29.15(a). Generally,

a notice of appeal must be filed “not later than ten days after the judgment . . . becomes final.”

See Rule 81.04(a);5 see also section 512.050 RSMo 2016; Twitty v. State, 322 S.W.3d 608, 609

(Mo. App. E.D. 2010); but see Rule 30.03 (allowing a defendant or the State having the right of

appeal to seek leave to file a notice of appeal out of time within twelve months after a judgment

becomes final). “A judgment becomes final at the expiration of thirty days after its entry if no

timely authorized after-trial motion is filed.” Rule 81.05(a)(1);6 see also Twitty, 322 S.W.3d at

609. When computing any time prescribed under the Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Civil

Procedure, the day of the judgment is not included, but “[t]he last day of the period so computed

is to be included, unless it is a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, in which event the period

runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday nor legal holiday.” Rule

44.01(a);7 see also Twitty, 322 S.W.3d at 609-10.

“The Missouri Supreme Court has found that the burden placed on a movant to ascertain

whether a proper notice of appeal is timely filed is not an unreasonable one.” Twitty, 322

S.W.3d at 610 (citing Gehrke v. State, 280 S.W.3d 54, 58 (Mo. banc 2009)). “The time limits for

filing a notice of appeal are mandatory.” Twitty, 322 S.W.3d at 610. Accordingly, if a notice of

appeal is untimely filed, our Court may dismiss the appeal. Id.

5 All references to Rule 81.04 are to the version of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.04 effective from January 1, 2017 to the present. 6 All references to Rule 81.05 are to the version of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 81.05 effective from January 1, 2000 to the present. 7 All references to Rule 44.01 are to the version of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 44.01 effective from July 1, 2013 to the present.

3 Rule 30.03 allows a defendant or the State having the right of appeal to seek leave to file

a notice of appeal out of time within twelve months after a judgment becomes final. See Rule

30.03. The Rule, titled “Notice of Appeal Filed Out of Time – Special Order of Appellate

Court,” specifically provides in full that:

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

Related

Goldberg v. Mos
631 S.W.2d 342 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1982)
Twitty v. State
322 S.W.3d 608 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2010)
George Fuller v. State of Missouri
485 S.W.3d 768 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2016)
McAnulty v. State
755 S.W.2d 24 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)
Gehrke v. State
280 S.W.3d 54 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2009)
State v. Campbell
558 S.W.3d 554 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lamont Campbell v. State of Missouri, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamont-campbell-v-state-of-missouri-moctapp-2021.