Waring v. State

466 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 380, 2015 WL 1548957
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided April 7, 2015·No. No. SD 33507·Published

Opinion

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, [571] 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

Waring v. State, 466 S.W.3d 570, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 380, 2015 WL 1548957 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

466 S.W.3d 570 (Waring v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pamela D. Ramsey v. State of Missouri
438 S.W.3d 521 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2014)
Wilson v. State
415 S.W.3d 727 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2013)