Background
Joshua C. Proffer was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, issuing its mandate on March 7, 2024.
Proffer mailed a pro se Rule 29.15 postconviction motion from the Department of Corrections mailroom on May 29, 2024, before the June 5 filing deadline, but the circuit clerk file-stamped it on June 11. His amended motion alleged that the mailing delay resulted from interference by USPS or the circuit court. The motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing but made no timeliness findings concerning the pro se motion.
The Court’s Holding
The court reversed and remanded. It held that the challenge was preserved despite Proffer’s failure to file a Rule 78.07(c) motion to amend the judgment, because timeliness questions under Rule 29.15 are not subject to that preservation requirement.
Rule 29.15(j) required findings of fact and conclusions of law on the timeliness of Proffer’s pro se motion. Because the file stamp showed an apparently late filing and Proffer alleged a basis for an exception, the motion court’s failure to hold a timeliness hearing or make findings prevented meaningful appellate review.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 29.15 timeliness issues need not be raised in a Rule 78.07(c) motion to be preserved for appeal.
- A motion court must make findings on the timeliness of a pro se postconviction motion when timeliness is at issue.
- On remand, the motion court must hold an evidentiary hearing on timeliness and proceed accordingly.
Why It Matters
Missouri courts have an independent duty to enforce Rule 29.15’s mandatory filing deadlines. But when a movant alleges facts supporting timely filing or a recognized exception, a court cannot bypass that issue and decide the postconviction motion without the findings required for appellate review.