Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: ANDY JOE ALTIC, JR., Appellant
vs.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Case Number: SD34526
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
Decision Date: 2017-02-14
Outcome: reversed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/andy-joe-altic-jr-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d34526
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=109933
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=ANDY+JOE+ALTIC%2C+JR.%2C+Appellant%0Avs.%0ASTATE+OF+MISSOURI%2C+Respondent&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=26&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 26; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri, text: conviction)

---
## Syllabus

ANDY JOE ALTIC, JR.,       ) 
          ) 
   Appellant,      ) 
          ) 
 vs.         ) No. SD34526 
          ) 
STATE OF MISSOURI,       ) FILED: February 14, 2017 
          ) 
   Respondent.      ) 
 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POLK COUNTY 
 
Honorable Michael O. Hendrickson, Judge 
 
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS 
 
(Before Lynch, P.J., Rahmeyer, J., and Scott, J.)

---

## PER CURIAM.  Mr. Altic appeals the dismissal of his Rule 29.15 postconviction

case.    We  need  reach only his  second  of  three  points,  which  the  state  concedes, 
regarding  failure  to  conduct  an  abandonment  hearing  per Moore  v.  State,  458  
S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015). 
Relevant dates are not in dispute.  On August 14, 2014, Mr. Altic timely moved 
pro se for Rule 29.15 relief from a stealing conviction.  Appointed counsel sought a 30-
day  extension  for  his  amended  motion,  but  there  was  no  ruling  of  record,  so  the 

2 
 
deadline  remained  November  7,  rendering  the  November  10  amended  motion 
untimely.    See Patton  v.  State,  488  S.W.3d  143-44  (Mo.App.  2016);  Frazee  v.  
State, 480 S.W.3d 442, 445 (Mo.App. 2016); Rule 29.15(g).  
When an amended motion is untimely, the motion court must independently 
inquire and determine whether abandonment occurred. Moore, 458 S.W.3d at 825.  
"In this case, the motion court did not make an independent inquiry into whether Mr. 
[Altic] was abandoned. When the independent inquiry is required but not done, this 
Court  will  remand  the  case  because  the  motion  court  is  the  appropriate  forum  to  
conduct such an inquiry."  Id. at 826.  
 We  reverse  and  remand  the  case  to  the  motion  court  to conduct  a Moore 
abandonment inquiry, the result of which will determine which motion the court will 
adjudicate, id.,  and for further proceedings consistent with Rule 29.15.
1
   
    
 
                                                           
1
 We deny all other points as moot.