Vincent Henderson, Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Vincent Henderson, Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: ED86359 Handdown Date: 05/30/2006 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Donald Lang McCullin Counsel for Appellant: Edward Scott Thompson Counsel for Respondent: Shaun J. Mackelprang Opinion Summary: Vincent Henderson appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 postconviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing. DISMISSED. Division Three holds: The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider Henderson's appeal because he failed to sign his Rule 24.035 postconviction relief motion. Citation: Opinion Author: Booker T. Shaw, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crane, P.J., and Mooney J., concur Opinion: Vincent Henderson ("Movant") appeals from the motion court's denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion after an evidentiary hearing. We dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Movant pled guilty to one count of unlawful use of a weapon, two counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of armed criminal action. The plea court sentenced Movant to three years for unlawful use of a weapon, two twenty-year sentences for the robberies, and three years for the counts of armed criminal action, to be served consecutively. Movant timely filed an unsigned pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Movant's post-conviction relief counsel filed an amended motion on his behalf. The motion court granted Movant an evidentiary hearing. On April 21, 2004, the motion court denied Movant's motion and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. Movant appeals claiming the motion court erred in denying him relief because his plea counsel was ineffective for promising Movant a lesser sentence than he received. The State asserts that this Court does not have jurisdiction because Movant failed to sign his pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion. We agree. Movant failed to sign his pro se motion or the amended motion filed by his counsel. The signature requirement is mandatory. See Tooley v. State, 20 S.W.3d 519, 520 (Mo. banc 2000) (noting that the signature requirement is not a hollow, meaningless technicality). Here, we have an unsigned motion and a judgment from the motion court ruling on this motion. "For jurisdiction to attach, Movant's signature remains a mandatory element, and his failure to sign the motion rendered it a nullity." Id.; Blanton v. State, 159 S.W.3d 870 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider movant's appeal because his post-conviction relief motion was unsigned). Because the motion court did not have jurisdiction when it ruled on Movant's motion, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. See Blanton, 159 S.W.3d at 871. DISMISSED. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.