State of Missouri ex rel. Catherine Hanaway, Relator, v. Honorable Ryan J. Helfrich, Judge of Franklin County, Respondent.

WRIT DIVISION FOUR

STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. CATHERINE HANAWAY,

Relator,

v.

HONORABLE RYAN J. HELFRICH JUDGE OF FRANKLIN COUNTY,

Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. ED113594

Original Proceeding in Prohibition Alan M. Wadlow was charged with third-degree domestic assault for attempting to injure the victim, who was in a continuing romantic relationship with him, by grabbing her by the throat. Wadlow waived his right to a jury trial. The circuit court conducted a bench trial on February 13, 2025. The circuit court issued its judgment on February 20, 2025, finding Wadlow guilty of third-degree domestic assault, a class E felony. On March 17, 2025, Wadlow filed a motion for new trial, asserting the circuit court made erroneous findings about the date of alleged abuse and the date the victim attempted to leave. On March 19, 2025, Wadlow

2

filed a motion to reconsider the finding of guilt on different grounds and requested the circuit court enter a conviction on a lesser-included offense. The circuit court modified the judgment, convicting Wadlow of fourth-degree domestic assault, a class A misdemeanor. The circuit court suspended the imposition of Wadlow's sentence and placed him on two years' probation with conditions. The circuit court denied the State's motion to reconsider. The State filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to vacate the amended judgment and reinstate the circuit court's conviction of third-degree domestic assault. Standard of Review 1

Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy this Court issues with "great caution and forbearance and only in cases of extreme necessity." State ex rel. T.J. v. Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d 353, 355 (Mo. banc 2021) (quoting State ex rel. Douglas Toyota III, Inc. v. Keeter, 804 S.W.2d 750, 752 (Mo. banc 1991)). A writ of prohibition is discretionary. State ex rel. Henley v. Bickel, 285 S.W.3d 327, 330 (Mo. banc 2009). A writ of prohibition will lie only where necessary to prevent a usurpation of judicial power, to

1 Wadlow's assertion that the State could have filed a direct appeal in this case is erroneous. The State is only authorized to appeal from a final judgment in a criminal case, even though section 547.200.2 does not utilize the word "final." State v. Harris, 675 S.W.3d 202, 205 (Mo. banc 2023). "A judgment in a criminal case becomes final when a sentence is imposed." State ex rel. Zahnd v. Van Amburg, 533 S.W.3d 227, 230 (Mo. banc 2017). Because the circuit court entered a suspended imposition of sentence, the judgment in this case is not final for purposes of appeal. Accordingly, a party seeking to remedy a circuit court's error following the suspended imposition of a sentence must seek an extraordinary writ. State v. Hotze, 250 S.W.3d 745, 746-47 (Mo. App. 2008).

3

remedy an excess of jurisdiction, or to prevent an absolute irreparable harm to a party. State ex el. Becker v. Wood, 611 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Mo. banc 2020). Discussion

Rule 29.11(b) requires a motion for new trial or a motion for acquittal to be "filed within fifteen days after the return of the verdict." If the defendant requests and shows good cause, the circuit court may extend this time period "for one additional period not to exceed ten days." Id. Accordingly, a motion for new trial or a motion for acquittal may only be filed within twenty-five days after the return of the verdict. State v. Vandergrift, 669 S.W.3d 282, 293 (Mo. banc 2023). Rule 29.11(b)'s time limitations are mandatory. State v. Cowgill, 712 S.W.3d 6, 10 (Mo. App. 2025). The circuit court convicted Wadlow on February 20, 2025. Wadlow's motion for new trial or motion for acquittal was due fifteen days later. However, the circuit court sustained Wadlow's motion for a ten-day extension of time; thereby allowing him a total of twenty-five days to file his motion. On March 17, 2025, the last possible day to file his motion, Wadlow filed his motion for new trial. The motion for new trial requested a new trial based upon the circuit court's "misunderstanding" of the details surrounding the dates of the alleged abuse and an incident when the victim was "packing her things to leave." Two days later, on March 19, 2025, Wadlow filed a motion for reconsideration of the finding of guilt. 2 Wadlow requested the circuit court enter a conviction for the lesser- included offense of fourth-degree domestic assault.

2 The Rules do not provide for a motion to reconsider a finding of guilt. The most analogous permissible motion is a motion for new trial or a motion for acquittal.

4

Wadlow's motion for reconsideration was filed outside the mandatory twenty- five-day time period allowed by Rule 29.11(b). "An untimely new-trial claim preserves nothing for review and is procedurally a nullity." State v. Nickels, 598 S.W.3d 626, 642 (Mo. App. 2020). There is no rule that allows a defendant to extend, modify, or expand upon claims after the deadline for filing. Id. "Because no exception is provided, a request to add a ground to the motion for new trial is a nullity when it is made after the extension period has expired." State v. Vickers, 560 S.W.3d 3, 23 (Mo. App. 2018) (quoting State v. Shelton, 529 S.W.3d 853, 866 (Mo. App. 2017)). Conclusion

Wadlow's motion for reconsideration was a nullity because it was untimely under Rule 29.11(b). The circuit court lacked authority to consider the issues raised in that motion. Accordingly, the circuit court's original conviction is reinstated, and the case is remanded for resentencing on the class E felony. This Court's preliminary writ of prohibition is made permanent.

John P. Torbitzky, Chief Judge Lisa P. Page, Judge and Michael S . Wright, Judge concur.