State Missouri v. Leamon White

Defendant was convicted in Jackson County Circuit Court of first degree murder, armed criminal action and first degree assault. Defendant was sentenced to death. His direct appeal and motion for post-conviction relief were consolidated. This Court affirmed the appellants direct appeal and remanded to the motion court for findings on the issue of post-conviction counsels abandonment in light of Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1991). On remand, the motion court dismissed defendants Rule 29.15 motion because it was not properly verified. In the alternative, the motion court reinstated its findings of fact and Conclusions of law dated August 1, 1990, whereby the court denied defendants motion on the merits. The motion court also reinstated its findings of fact and Conclusions of law dated April 15, 1992, in which it determined that defendant was not abandoned. This Court holds that: (1) the verification requirement for defendants pro se 29.15 motion was met when defendant signed the motion; (2) a remand to the motion court in accordance with Barry v. State, 850 S.W.2d 348 (Mo. banc 1993), is required for findings of fact and Conclusions of law on defendants pro se 29.15 motion; (3) defendants first and second amended 29.15 motions were verified, but were not timely filed and should have been dismissed; (4) defendant was abandoned by the decision of the Office of State Public Defender to change defendants counsel fourteen days before the end of the sixty day period for filing the Rule 29.15 amended motion without leave of court, by his first appointed counsels withdrawal without leave of the motion court, and by both his first and second appointed counsels failure to file an amended motion timely; (5) defendant was not abandoned by counsel for improperly verifying his amended motions or for failure to allege sufficient facts and grounds for relief; (6) defendants first amended 29.15 motion is revived because defendant was abandoned as to the timeliness of the first amended motion but not as to the motions content; (7) defendants second amended 29.15 motion was properly dismissed as untimely filed; and (8) on remand the motion court should make findings of fact and Conclusions of law on defendants first amended motion in accordance with Barry, 850 S.W.2d 348.