Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Nov 5, 2018
JAMIE BELL, Appellant vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent
Jamie Bell filed a pro se Rule 29.15 motion, and his retained counsel later filed an untimely amended motion. The motion court, following Gittemeier v. State, declined an abandonment inquiry and denied relief, finding the pro se claims not cognizable. On appeal, Bell argued the motion court abused its discretion by following Gittemeier, claiming State v. Bazell introduced a new statutory interpretation. The appellate court disagreed, affirming the judgment and stating that Bazell does not authorize trial judges to disregard controlling case law on pending issues.