Cedric Dewayne Mack Missouri Cases

Cedric Mack appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. Mack's pro se motion was timely, but his amended motion, filed by a public defender who entered an appearance without appointment, was not. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that the amended motion was untimely and the abandonment doctrine did not apply. Furthermore, Mack's single claim in his pro se motion had already been raised and decided in his direct appeal, precluding relitigation in a postconviction proceeding.

Cedric Mack appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The appellate court determined that the amended motion was untimely because the motion court granted an extension after the initial filing deadline had passed, and the motion court failed to conduct an abandonment inquiry. Additionally, the motion court did not issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 29.15(j). Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for an abandonment inquiry and for the issuance of proper findings and conclusions.

Cedric Dewayne Mack appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress evidence from an investigatory stop. Mack contended the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on multiple calls reporting dangerous driving and the officer's own observations, thus rendering any motion to suppress meritless.