Case Title: Milner v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC96909

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 2018-07-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
LOWELL CLYDE MILNER, 
      ) 
      ) 
Appellant,  
      ) 
      ) 
v.    
      ) 
No. SC96909 
      ) 
STATE OF MISSOURI,           
      ) 
  ) 
            Respondent. 
      ) 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY 
The Honorable Sandy Martinez, Judge 
Lowell Clyde Milner (hereinafter, “Milner”) appeals from a judgment dismissing 
his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.1  
Milner’s amended motion for post-conviction relief was filed untimely, and the motion 
court failed to make an independent inquiry into whether Milner was abandoned by his 
appointed counsel.  Because the determination of whether Milner was abandoned 
determines which post-conviction motion should be reviewed and there was no record 
available for review of the motion court’s determination, this Court reverses the motion 
1 This Court acquired jurisdiction by granting transfer following an opinion by the court 
of appeals.  Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. 
Opinion issued July 17, 2018
2 
 
court’s judgment and remands the case with instructions for the motion court to make an 
independent inquiry to determine whether Milner was abandoned. 
Factual and Procedural History 
Milner pleaded guilty to two counts of failing to register as a sex offender.  The 
circuit court sentenced Milner to four years’ imprisonment for each count to run 
consecutively.  The circuit court suspended execution of Milner’s sentence, and placed 
him on five years’ probation.  Subsequently, Milner’s probation was revoked, his 
sentence was executed, and he was delivered to the department of corrections. 
 
Milner timely filed his pro se motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 
24.035, on April 11, 2016.  Post-conviction relief counsel (hereinafter, “Counsel”) was 
appointed that same day.   
The transcript from Milner’s guilty plea and sentencing hearing was filed May 24, 
2016.  Counsel filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file the amended motion 
for post-conviction relief; the motion court granted this motion.  Milner’s amended 
motion for post-conviction relief was due September 22, 2016.  Rule 24.035(g). 
However, Counsel did not file an amended motion for post-conviction relief until 
November 2, 2016, raising additional claims other than those asserted in the pro se 
motion for post-conviction relief.  Counsel requested the amended motion be filed out of 
time because she was unable to obtain records that were destroyed by Milner’s plea 
counsel.  Prior to the motion court ruling on Counsel’s request to file out of time, the 
state filed a motion to dismiss Milner’s pro se motion for post-conviction relief. 
3 
 
The motion court did not adjudicate Milner’s amended motion and entered a 
judgment dismissing Milner’s pro se post-conviction motion without an evidentiary 
hearing.  Milner appeals. 
Discussion 
“Appellate review of judgments disposing of Rule 24.035 motions is limited to a 
determination of whether the motion court’s findings and conclusions are clearly 
erroneous.”  Hall v. State, 528 S.W.3d 360, 361 (Mo. banc 2017); Rule 24.035(k).  
“Findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous if, after reviewing the entire record, this 
Court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made.”  Barton 
v. State, 486 S.W.3d 332, 336 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting Eastburn v. State, 400 S.W.3d 
770, 773 (Mo. banc 2013)). 
An amended motion for post-conviction relief must be filed within sixty days of 
the date both a complete transcript of the guilty plea and sentencing hearing is filed and 
counsel is appointed.  Rule 24.035(g).  The motion court “may extend the time for filing 
the amended motion for one additional period not to exceed 30 days.”  Id.  “Rule 
24.035(g) filing deadlines are mandatory.”  Bearden v. State, 530 S.W.3d 504, 506 (Mo. 
banc 2017).   
When appointed post-conviction counsel fails to comply with the mandates of 
Rule 24.035, the movant may have been abandoned by counsel.2  There are two 
                                                 
2 The abandonment doctrine is limited to circumstances involving appointed post-
conviction counsel.  Gittemeier v. State, 527 S.W.3d 64, 71 (Mo. banc 2017). 
 
4 
 
categories of abandonment claims:  (1) when “post-conviction counsel takes no action on 
movant’s behalf with respect to filing an amended motion” and (2) “when post-
conviction counsel is aware of the need to file an amended post-conviction relief motion 
and fails to do so in a timely manner.”  Barton, 486 S.W.3d at 338 (quoting Barnett v. 
State, 103 S.W.3d 765, 774 (Mo. banc 2003)).  “Claims of abandonment are reviewed 
carefully to ensure that the true claim is abandonment and not a substitute for an 
impermissible claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel.”  Taylor v. 
State, 254 S.W.3d 856, 858 (Mo. banc 2008). 
 
Here, Milner’s amended motion for post-conviction relief was due September 22, 
2016, but it was not filed until November 2, 2016.  Milner and the state concede 
Counsel’s amended post-conviction motion was filed untimely.   
“The untimely filing of an amended motion by post[-]conviction counsel creates a 
presumption of abandonment.”  Watson v. State, 536 S.W.3d 716, 719 (Mo. banc 2018).  
When appointed counsel fails to file an amended post-conviction motion timely, the 
motion court is obligated to conduct an independent inquiry to determine whether the 
movant was actually abandoned.  Bearden, 530 S.W.3d at 506; Moore v. State, 458 
S.W.3d 822, 825 (Mo. banc 2015).   
The method of making this inquiry may be as formal or informal as the 
motion court deems necessary to resolve the question of abandonment by 
counsel ….  However, a sufficient record must be made to demonstrate on 
appeal that the motion court’s determination on the abandonment issue is 
not clearly erroneous.   
 
McDaris v. State, 843 S.W.2d 369, 371 n.1 (Mo. banc 1992). 
 
5 
 
If the motion court determines appointed counsel’s apparent inattention to filing 
an amended post-conviction motion stems from the movant’s negligence or intentional 
failure to act, the movant is entitled to no additional relief, and the motion court should 
proceed upon the pro se post-conviction motion.  Moore, 458 S.W.3d at 825.  “If the 
motion court determines that the movant was abandoned by appointed counsel’s untimely 
filing of an amended motion, the court is directed to permit the untimely filing.”  Id. at 
826. 
 
“When the independent inquiry is required but not done, this Court will remand 
the case because the motion court is the appropriate forum to conduct such an inquiry.”  
Id.  The result of the motion court’s inquiry will determine which motion the motion 
court should adjudicate.  Id.   
In this case, the record demonstrates Counsel filed a motion to consider the 
untimely amended motion as timely filed pursuant to Sanders v. State, 807 S.W.2d 493 
(Mo. banc 1991).  Then the state filed a motion to dismiss Milner’s post-conviction 
motion for failure to file a timely amended motion.  The motion court sustained the 
state’s motion, finding there was no abandonment by Counsel and Milner had not made 
any ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his pro se post-conviction motion.    
 
Counsel’s failure to file a timely amended post-conviction motion created a 
presumption of abandonment and triggered the motion court’s obligation to conduct an 
independent inquiry to determine whether the movant was actually abandoned.  There is 
no record demonstrating the motion court conducted an independent inquiry into whether 
Milner was abandoned.   
6 
 
The failure to conduct an independent inquiry requires this case to be remanded to 
the motion court for an independent abandonment inquiry, which is capable of being 
reviewed by an appellate court.  If the motion court determines Counsel failed to file a 
timely amended motion due to the movant’s negligence or intentional failure to act, there 
is no abandonment and the motion court should adjudicate the pro se post-conviction 
motion.  Moore, 458 S.W.3d at 825.  However, if the motion court determines the movant 
did not act negligently or did not intentionally fail to act, the motion court should permit 
the untimely filing.  Id. at 826.   
Conclusion 
 
The motion court’s judgment is reversed.  This case is remanded with instructions 
for the motion court to make an independent inquiry, which is capable of being reviewed 
by an appellate court, to determine whether Milner was abandoned by Counsel’s failure 
to file an amended post-conviction motion timely.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JUDGE 
 
All concur.