WALTER DEAN WARING, Appellant, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.
Decision date: April 7, 2015SD33507
Opinion
WALTER DEAN WARING, ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. SD33507 ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) FILED: April 7, 2015 ) Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CEDAR COUNTY
Honorable James R. Bickel, Judge
(Before Francis, P.J./C.J., Bates, J., and Scott, J.)
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
PER CURIAM. Walter Waring timely filed an indigency affidavit and pro se motion for Rule 24.035 relief from his felony DWI convictions. The motion court summarily denied relief without appointing counsel for Waring, who claims this was error. The state agrees, as do we. "When an indigent movant files a pro se motion, the court shall cause counsel to be appointed for the movant." Rule 24.035(e). Such appointment "is mandatory." Ramsey v. State, 438 S.W.3d 521, 522 (Mo.App. 2014). "A motion court that
2 dismisses a pro se Rule 24.035 motion without appointing counsel commits clear error." Id. See also Wilson v. State, 415 S.W.3d 727, 728 (Mo.App. 2013). We reverse, remand, and direct the motion court to appoint counsel for Waring and proceed further after that appointment. Id.
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172