OTT LAW

Matthew H. Coy vs. State of Missouri

Decision date: June 28, 2019WD82041

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Matthew H. Coy
Respondent
State of Missouri

Judges

Opinion Author
Anthony Rex Gabbert
Trial Court Judge
Jeffrey Lynn Bushur·Matthew H

Disposition

Remanded

Procedural posture: Appeal from the circuit court's dismissal of a pro se motion for post-conviction relief

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

MATTHEW H. COY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent.

          

WD82041

OPINION FILED:

JUNE 28, 2019

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The Honorable Jeffrey Lynn Bushur, Judge

Before Division Three: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge

Matthew H. Coy appeals the circuit court's dismissal of Coy's Rule 24.035 pro se motion for post-conviction relief. Coy's motion was filed May 30, 2018, and included a Forma Pauperis Affidavit claiming indigence due to incarceration and the absence of income, resources, or assets to cover legal expenses. Coy requested the appointment of counsel, however none was appointed. On June 21, 2018, the State filed a motion to dismiss Coy's Rule 24.035 motion on the grounds that it was untimely. The court dismissed Coy's motion June 25, 2018, finding that, "Movant's motion is untimely filed and is hereby dismissed with prejudice." Coy appeals, arguing the merits of his motion without addressing its timeliness.

2 Rule 24.035(e) provides that, "[w]ithin 30 days after an indigent movant files a pro se motion, the court shall cause counsel to be appointed for the movant." Although a threshold to achieving post-conviction relief is the timely filing of a pro se motion, movant's counsel may raise an exception to the filing time limits in an amended motion that the movant may not have realized was applicable. Naylor v. State, 569 S.W.3d 28, 31-32 (Mo. App. 2018) (citing Vogl v. State, 437 S.W.3d 218, 226 (Mo. banc 2014). Hence, "the court's denial of a pro se Rule 24.035 motion without appointing counsel may deprive the movant of his opportunity to allege and prove the timeliness of his motion." Id. "For these reasons, a motion court is required to appoint counsel for a movant even when the movant's pro se motion is facially untimely." Id. We reverse the motion court's dismissal of Coy's motion and remand for the appointment of counsel.

Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge

All concur.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Cases

Holdings

Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.

AI-generated
  1. Issue: Whether a motion court is required to appoint counsel for an indigent movant in a pro se Rule 24.035 motion, even if the motion is facially untimely.

    Yes; a motion court must appoint counsel for an indigent movant in a Rule 24.035 motion, even when the pro se motion is facially untimely, to ensure the movant has an opportunity to allege and prove the timeliness of the motion through counsel.

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.