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

Case: JAMIE BELL, Appellant
vs.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Case Number: SD35339
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
Decision Date: 2018-11-05
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jamie-bell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d35339
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132994
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=JAMIE+BELL%2C+Appellant%0Avs.%0ASTATE+OF+MISSOURI%2C+Respondent&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=40&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+topic%3A+criminal-procedure&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 40; evidence: tag: criminal-law, topic: criminal-procedure, text: state of missouri, text: criminal)
- Civil Litigation: https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=litigation&ott_archive_query=JAMIE+BELL%2C+Appellant%0Avs.%0ASTATE+OF+MISSOURI%2C+Respondent&ott_archive_link_source=topic&ott_archive_link_score=12&ott_archive_link_evidence=topic%3A+appellate-procedure&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: litigation; source: topic; score: 12; evidence: topic: appellate-procedure)

---
## Syllabus

JAMIE BELL,           ) 
            ) 
   Appellant,        ) 
            ) 
 vs.           )    No. SD35339 
            ) 
STATE OF MISSOURI,         ) FILED: November 5, 2018 
            ) 
   Respondent.        ) 
 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PHELPS COUNTY 
Honorable John D. Beger, Judge 
(Before Francis, Jr., P.J., Bates, J., and Scott, J.) 
AFFIRMED

---

## PER CURIAM.  Jamie Bell timely filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion and counsel

was appointed.  Bell then retained different counsel who filed an untimely amended 
motion.      Before   either   motion   was   ruled,   our Supreme   Court   handed   down 
Gittemeier v. State, 527 S.W.3d 64 (Mo. banc 2017),  which declined to extend the 
abandonment doctrine to excuse an untimely amended motion by retained counsel.  
Following Gittemeier,  the  motion  court  declined  to  conduct  an  abandonment  

2 
 
inquiry,  found  the  claims  in  Bell's pro  se motion  were  not  cognizable,  and  denied  
relief. 
Bell's sole point on appeal charges that the motion court abused its discretion 
and was fundamentally unfair in following Gittemeier. 
 Bell acknowledges cases like Thornton v. Denney, 467 S.W.3d 292, 298-99 
(Mo. banc 2015), that support the motion court's action.   However, he claims that our 
supreme  court  in  State  v.  Bazell,  497  S.W.3d  263  (Mo.  banc  2016),  and  later 
decisions  has  applied a  new  statutory  interpretation  "going  forward  only  in  some  
cases" and taking into account whether a party should or should not receive the benefit 
or harm of a change in the law. 
We disagree.  Our supreme court's choice not to apply Bazell retroactively to 
final criminal cases where sentence has been executed and no appeal pends, see State 
ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer, 530 S.W.3d 500, 503 (Mo. banc 2017), does not 
contradict the general principle that appellate statutory or rule interpretation applies 
to and governs cases then pending in trial courts.  
Gittemeier came down months before the motion court decided this case.  Bell 
cites  nothing  in  Bazell  or elsewhere that authorizes  trial  judges to  disregard  
controlling case law on issues then pending before them.  Judgment affirmed.