JACOB MONTGOMERY CORWIN, Appellant, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.
Decision date: September 11, 2017SD34619
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.
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. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.