WALTER DEAN WARING v. STATE OF MISSOURI
This text of WALTER DEAN WARING v. STATE OF MISSOURI (WALTER DEAN WARING 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
WALTER DEAN WARING, ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. SD33507 ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) FILED: April 7, 2015 ) Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CEDAR COUNTY
Honorable James R. Bickel, Judge
(Before Francis, P.J./C.J., Bates, J., and Scott, J.)
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
PER CURIAM. Walter Waring timely filed an indigency affidavit and pro se
motion for Rule 24.035 relief from his felony DWI convictions. The motion court
summarily denied relief without appointing counsel for Waring, who claims this was
error. The state agrees, as do we.
“When an indigent movant files a pro se motion, the court shall cause counsel
to be appointed for the movant.” Rule 24.035(e). Such appointment “is mandatory.”
Ramsey v. State, 438 S.W.3d 521, 522 (Mo.App. 2014). “A motion court that dismisses a pro se Rule 24.035 motion without appointing counsel commits clear
error.” Id. See also Wilson v. State, 415 S.W.3d 727, 728 (Mo.App. 2013).
We reverse, remand, and direct the motion court to appoint counsel for
Waring and proceed further after that appointment. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
WALTER DEAN WARING v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-dean-waring-v-state-of-missouri-moctapp-2015.