Matthew H. Coy v. State of Missouri
This text of 577 S.W.3d 814 (Matthew H. Coy 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.
Opinion
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District
MATTHEW H. COY, WD82041 Appellant, OPINION FILED: v. JUNE 28, 2019 STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The Honorable Jeffrey Lynn Bushur, Judge
Before Division Three: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge
Matthew H. Coy appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of Coy’s Rule 24.035 pro se motion
for post-conviction relief. Coy’s motion was filed May 30, 2018, and included a Forma Pauperis
Affidavit claiming indigence due to incarceration and the absence of income, resources, or assets
to cover legal expenses. Coy requested the appointment of counsel, however none was appointed.
On June 21, 2018, the State filed a motion to dismiss Coy’s Rule 24.035 motion on the grounds
that it was untimely. The court dismissed Coy’s motion June 25, 2018, finding that, “Movant’s
motion is untimely filed and is hereby dismissed with prejudice.” Coy appeals, arguing the merits
of his motion without addressing its timeliness. Rule 24.035(e) provides that, “[w]ithin 30 days after an indigent movant files a pro se
motion, the court shall cause counsel to be appointed for the movant.” Although a threshold to
achieving post-conviction relief is the timely filing of a pro se motion, movant’s counsel may raise
an exception to the filing time limits in an amended motion that the movant may not have realized
was applicable. Naylor v. State, 569 S.W.3d 28, 31-32 (Mo. App. 2018) (citing Vogl v. State, 437
S.W.3d 218, 226 (Mo. banc 2014). Hence, “the court’s denial of a pro se Rule 24.035 motion
without appointing counsel may deprive the movant of his opportunity to allege and prove the
timeliness of his motion.” Id. “For these reasons, a motion court is required to appoint counsel
for a movant even when the movant’s pro se motion is facially untimely.” Id.
We reverse the motion court’s dismissal of Coy’s motion and remand for the appointment
of counsel.
Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge
All concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
577 S.W.3d 814, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-h-coy-v-state-of-missouri-moctapp-2019.