OTT LAW

Shawn Wenzel, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: UnknownED106977

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

SHAWN WENZEL, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent. ) No. ED106977 Appeal from the Circuit Court of Perry County Cause No. 17PR-CC00041 Honorable B enjamin F. Lewis

Introduction Shawn Wenzel (Movant) appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 1

motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We vacate the judgment with directions to dismiss the Rule 24.035 motion because Movant's pro se motion was untimely. Background On December 12, 2014 Movant pleaded guilty to delivering or concealing a prohibited article on the premises of a county jail, a class B felony and driving while revoked, a class D felony. The court sentenced Movant to concurrent terms of seven years imprisonment for the class B felony and four years imprisonment for the class D felony, 1 All Rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. (2014) unless otherwise indicated

2 pursuant to the 120-day institutional training program under Section 559.115 RSMo. Cum. Supp. (2014). The court also ordered this sentence be served consecutively to a seven-year sentence from a previous case. On April 7, 2015 Movant completed the institutional treatment program. The court placed Movant on probation for five years. On May 13, 2016 and October 7, 2016, the court found that Movant violated his probation. In both instances, the court continued Movant's probation with additional conditions. On October 7, 2016 Movant also pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. On June 2, 2017 the court again found that Movant violated his probation. The court executed Movant's sentences which included the 2014 seven-year sentence for the prohibited article and four-year sentence for driving while revoked. On August 17, 2017 Movant filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion. Movant asserted that he was challenging his seven-year sentence for the 2014 prohibited article conviction. Movant alleged that for this conviction he was delivered to the Department of Corrections on June 20, 2017. Movant through appointed counsel filed an amended Rule 24.035 motion. In his sole claim, Movant alleged that he was improperly charged and convicted of a class B felony for the prohibited article. Movant asserted that the proper charge was a class A misdemeanor and not a class B felony. The motion court denied Movant's amended motion without an evidentiary hearing. This appeal follows.

3 Discussion The time restrictions set forth in Rule 24.035 motion are "mandatory, strictly enforced, and may not be extended." Miley v. State, 559 S.W.3d 97, 99 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018). A movant's failure to timely file a pro se Rule 24.035 motion constitutes a complete waiver of the movant's right to proceed with the post-conviction motion. Rule 24.035(b); Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 266 (Mo. banc 2012). Rule 24.035(b) provided if no appeal of the "judgment was taken, the motion shall be filed within 180 days of the date the person is delivered to the custody of the [D]epartment of [C]orrections." 2 The law is well settled that the time limitations for filing a motion for post-conviction relief starts upon a movant's initial delivery to the custody of the Department of Corrections. Hall v. State, 380 S.W.3d 583, 585 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). This applies even in cases where pursuant to Section 559.115 the trial court remands the movant to the Department of Corrections so the movant can enter an institutional treatment program and then places the movant on probation upon completion of the program. Id. "The delivery of the movant into the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections for a 120-day treatment program pursuant to Section 559.115 initiates the 180-day period in which the movant may file a Rule 24.035 motion." Langhans v. State, 501 S.W.3d 535, 538 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). Here, the court originally sentenced Movant on December 12, 2014 for a prohibited article and driving while revoked under the Section 559.115 institutional treatment 2 The Missouri Supreme Court amended Rule 24.035; effective January 1, 2018 the rule provides if no appeal of the judgment or sentence is taken "the motion shall be filed within 180 days of the date the sentence is entered." Rule 24.035(b) Mo. R. Crim. P. (2018) (emphasis added).

Related Opinions

Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,374 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,516 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,993 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,603 words