JACOB MONTGOMERY CORWIN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.
Decision date: September 11, 2017SD34619
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- JACOB MONTGOMERY CORWIN
- Respondent
- STATE OF MISSOURI
Judges
- Trial Court Judge
- Thomas E
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
- {"type":"reversed","scope":null}
- {"type":"remanded","scope":null}
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.
Syllabus
JACOB MONTGOMERY CORWIN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) No. SD34619 and SD34721 vs. ) Consolidated ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) FILED: September 11, 2017 ) Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY
Honorable Thomas E. Mountjoy, Judge
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS (Before Bates, J., Scott, J., and Francis, J.)
PER CURIAM. Jacob Corwin appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion.
1 We agree with both parties that we must reverse and remand per Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc 2015). After we affirmed Corwin's conviction for attempted forcible rape (State v. Corwin, 295 S.W.3d 572 (Mo.App. 2009)), he timely moved pro se for Rule 29.15
1 We address two consolidated appeals, one from the motion court's original order (SD34619) and one from a later amended order (SD34721).
2
relief. Appointed counsel filed an untimely amended motion. Seven months later, newly retained counsel filed a second amended motion that the motion court ultimately denied without first determining whether Corwin had been abandoned. 2
When an amended motion is untimely, the motion court must independently inquire and determine whether abandonment occurred. Moore, 458 S.W.3d at 825. Such an inquiry is necessary to determine which motion should be adjudicated. Id. at 826. "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. We reverse and remand to the motion court to conduct a Moore abandonment inquiry and for further proceedings consistent with Rule 29.15. Other points on appeal are denied as moot.
2 Although the motion court requested a proposed order concerning abandonment, the record contains no order (proposed or otherwise) determining the matter.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 29.15cited
Rule 29.15
Cases
- moore v state 458 sw3d 822cited
Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822
- state v corwin 295 sw3d 572cited
State v. Corwin, 295 S.W.3d 572
Related Opinions
Other opinions in the same practice area.
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, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.