Dorian Alexander, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownED103774
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
DORIAN ALEXANDER, ) No. ED103774 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the City of St. Louis vs. ) ) Hon. Robin R. Vannoy STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Filed: Respondent. ) February 21, 2017
Dorian Alexander ("Movant") appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand. Movant was convicted of multiple counts of robbery and armed criminal action after a jury trial and was sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. After his convictions were affirmed on appeal, Movant filed a timely pro se Rule 29.15 motion on December 10, 2014. An attorney from the public defender's office entered his appearance on January 9, 2015 and filed a motion for an additional thirty days in which to file the amended motion. Therein, counsel mentions that he was "appointed" but does not say when, and there is no court order, docket entry or other indication in the record as to when counsel was appointed. The extension of time was granted, and an amended motion was filed on April 9, 2015, which was ninety days after counsel's entry of appearance. But appointed counsel's deadline for filing runs from the date of appointment, not the date of entry of appearance.
2
If an appeal of the judgment sought to be vacated, set aside, or corrected is taken, the amended motion shall be filed within sixty days of the earlier of: (1) the date both the mandate of the appellate court and counsel is appointed or (2) the date both the mandate of the appellate court is issued and an entry of appearance by any counsel that is not appointed but enters an appearance on behalf of movant. Rule 29.15(g). Thus, in this case, if counsel was appointed the same day he entered his appearance, then the amended motion was timely. If, on the other hand, he was appointed any time prior to that date, then the amended motion was untimely. If the amended motion was untimely, then the motion court was required to inquire into the possibility that Movant had been abandoned by counsel. See Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822, 824 (Mo. banc 2015). In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the motion court stated that counsel entered his appearance and "timely filed an amended motion." But that conclusion about timeliness is not supported by any record of the date of appointment. See Ford v. State, 2017 WL 410236, at *2 (Mo. App. E.D. January 31, 2017). Because the date of appointment is unknown, reversal and remand to the motion court is required. See id. The judgment is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., Judge
Angela T. Quigless, P.J. and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J., concur.
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976
Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.