WESLEY L. HATMON, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Decision date: July 29, 2020SD36289
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- WESLEY L. HATMON, Movant-
- Respondent
- STATE OF MISSOURI·STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-
Judges
- Trial Court Judge
- Lisa Carter Henderson
Disposition
Remanded
Procedural posture: Appeal from denial of 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.
Opinion
1
WESLEY L. HATMON, ) ) Movant-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SD36289 ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Filed: July 29, 2020 ) Respondent-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DALLAS COUNTY
Honorable Lisa Carter Henderson, Associate Circuit Judge
REVERSED & REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
Wesley L. Hatmon ("Movant"), following an evidentiary hearing on an amended motion, was denied post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. 1 Unfortunately, we must reverse and remand, not on the merits, but for an independent evidentiary inquiry on whether Movant was abandoned by post-conviction counsel. Both Movant and the State agree that the amended motion was untimely. The notice of filing of guilty plea and sentencing transcript, filed by post-conviction counsel, erroneously stated the due date for
1 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2020), unless otherwise specified.
2 the amended motion. 2 The issue of the timeliness of the amended motion was neither mentioned in the Rule 24.035 evidentiary hearing, nor addressed in the findings of facts and conclusions of law. We must address the timeliness of the amended motion. Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822, 826-27 (Mo. banc 2015). "The filing deadlines for post[-]conviction relief are mandatory, and cannot be waived." Watson v. State, 536 S.W.3d 716, 717 (Mo. banc 2018) (internal quotations and citation omitted). "The untimely filing of an amended motion by post[-]conviction counsel creates a presumption of abandonment." Id. at 719. When the presumption of abandonment arises, "the motion court is obligated to conduct an independent inquiry to determine whether the movant was actually abandoned." Milner v. State, 551 S.W.3d 476, 479-80 (Mo. banc 2018). We, therefore, have no choice but to reverse the judgment and remand the case to the motion court with instructions to make an independent inquiry on the abandonment issue.
Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, P.J. – Opinion Author
Daniel E. Scott, J. – Concurs
William W. Francis, Jr., J. – Concurs
2 Separate counsel relied upon that date in the filing of the amended motion.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 24.035cited
Rule 24.035
Cases
- milner v state 551 sw3d 476followed
Milner v. State, 551 S.W.3d 476
- watson v state 536 sw3d 716followed
Watson v. State, 536 S.W.3d 716
- we must address the timeliness of the amended motion moore v state 458 sw3d 822cited
We must address the timeliness of the amended motion. Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822
Holdings
Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.
Issue: Whether an untimely amended motion filed by post-conviction counsel creates a presumption of abandonment requiring an independent inquiry by the motion court.
Yes, an untimely filing of an amended motion by post-conviction counsel creates a presumption of abandonment, obligating the motion court to conduct an independent inquiry to determine whether the movant was actually abandoned.
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Wesley Hatmon, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2023)
Supreme Court of MissouriMarch 21, 2023#SC99591
Christopher A. Scott, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2025)
Supreme Court of MissouriJuly 22, 2025#SC100916
Henry L. Ward vs. State of Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictJanuary 28, 2025#WD86338
CLAYTON D. COUNTS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMay 9, 2024#SD37822
Gregory E. Saddler, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 26, 2024#ED111852
Donte McGary, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2023)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 28, 2023#ED110408