WESLEY L. HATMON, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Decision date: July 29, 2020SD36289
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.
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
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.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
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.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
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.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
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.