Title: Lemasters v. State

State: missouri

Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court

Document:

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
en banc 
ANDREW LUKE LEMASTERS, 
     ) 
     ) 
Appellant, 
     ) 
     ) 
v. 
     ) 
No. SC97878 
     ) 
STATE OF MISSOURI, 
     ) 
     ) 
     ) 
Respondent.      ) 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEWTON COUNTY 
The Honorable Timothy W. Perigo, Judge  
Andrew Lemasters appeals the judgment overruling his Rule 29.15 postconviction 
motion seeking to vacate his felony statutory sodomy conviction under section 566.062.1 
He claims the motion court erred in failing to adjudicate one claim and in denying another 
claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.  Before considering Mr. Lemasters’s claims 
on appeal, this Court examines whether his pro se motion was timely filed.  Because the 
trial court has yet to comply with this Court’s mandate in State v. Lemasters, 456 S.W.3d 
416 (Mo. banc 2015), there is no final judgment in the underlying criminal case.  Therefore, 
Mr. Lemasters’s motion for postconviction relief is premature.  The motion court’s 
1 All statutory citations are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise noted. 
Opinion issued April 28, 2020
2 
 
judgment is vacated, and the cause is remanded.  On remand, Mr. Lemasters’s pro se 
motion shall be deemed filed when the time for filing a postconviction relief motion 
commences under Rule 29.15(b).2 
Factual and Procedural Background 
In 2013, a jury found Mr. Lemasters guilty of one count of first-degree statutory 
sodomy, and the court sentenced him to 31 years in prison.  Mr. Lemasters had been 
charged with two counts of statutory sodomy, but the state dismissed the second count 
before the case was submitted to the jury.  In recording the judgment, however, the trial 
court mistakenly noted that Mr. Lemasters had been convicted of both counts. 
Mr. Lemasters appealed, alleging the trial court erred in overruling his motion to 
disqualify the prosecutor’s office and seeking to correct the erroneous written judgment.  
This Court found, while the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Mr. 
Lemasters’s motion to disqualify the prosecutor’s office, it did make a clerical error in 
recording the judgment.  This Court held, “the judgment as to one count of first-degree 
statutory sodomy is affirmed.  The judgment as to the second count of first-degree statutory 
sodomy is vacated.  The case is remanded with directions that the trial court vacate its 
judgment with respect to the second count of statutory sodomy.”  Lemasters, 456 S.W.3d 
at 426.  This Court issued its mandate on March 12, 2015.   
After this Court’s mandate issued, the trial court made a docket entry stating, 
“Affirmed.”  This is likely because, on July 14, 2014, approximately eight months before 
                                              
2 All references to Rule 29.15 are to Missouri Court Rules (2015). 
3 
 
this Court issued its mandate, the trial court entered an amended judgment correcting the 
error in the original judgment.  A review of the record on appeal, however, shows this 
Court was unaware of this amendment when it decided Mr. Lemasters’s appeal.  Neither 
Mr. Lemasters nor the state noted the trial court’s amended judgment in their briefs, which 
were filed subsequent to the amendment.  Instead, both parties asked this Court to enter a 
nunc pro tunc correction to the trial court’s original erroneous judgment, suggesting the 
parties also lacked notice of the trial court’s action.  The Court declined to correct the 
judgment nunc pro tunc and, instead, remanded with the above instructions. 
Mr. Lemasters filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15 
on June 17, 2015, 97 days after this Court issued its mandate.  The motion court appointed 
the public defender to represent him.  Motion counsel filed a motion to treat 
Mr. Lemasters’s pro se Rule 29.15 motion as timely, alleging Mr. Lemasters’s “delay in 
finalizing his Form 40, with his signature, in part resulted from his having to wait for access 
to a notary public with the institution” and citing Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292 (Mo. banc 
2014), as authority for the exception to an untimely filed motion when the delay was caused 
by third-party interference.  The motion court sustained his motion on September 25, 2015.   
Motion counsel filed an amended Rule 29.15 motion.  At the beginning of the 
evidentiary hearing, Mr. Lemasters’s counsel confirmed that the motion court had 
sustained the motion to treat Mr. Lemasters’s pro se motion as timely. The state did not 
object to Mr. Lemasters’s claim of third-party interference, and Mr. Lemasters presented 
no evidence regarding the alleged third-party interference.  After the evidentiary hearing, 
the motion court overruled Mr. Lemasters’s motion on the merits, holding Mr. Lemasters 
4 
 
“failed to meet his burden beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he received 
ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and secondly he was prejudiced thereby.” 
Mr. Lemasters appealed.  This Court granted transfer after opinion by the court of 
appeals.  Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10.   
Analysis 
Mr. Lemasters claims his motion for postconviction relief was premature because 
the trial court failed to carry out this Court’s mandate issued in his direct appeal; therefore, 
his judgment of conviction is not yet final.  He further argues the time period for him to 
file his pro se motion will not begin to run until the trial court acts as mandated by this 
Court.  The state argues Mr. Lemasters may not raise this claim for the first time on appeal, 
particularly in light of Mr. Lemasters’s contrary request that the motion court treat his pro 
se postconviction motion as timely filed.  Given his position in the motion court, the state 
asserts Mr. Lemasters “waived appellate review of any alleged error by the motion court 
in proceeding on his postconviction motion.”   
Even if this Court were to agree Mr. Lemasters waived any claim that his 
postconviction relief motion was prematurely filed, it does not end the inquiry into the 
timeliness of his pro se motion.  In its brief, the state claims the motion court erred in 
treating Mr. Lemasters’s motion as timely because it was filed 97 days after this Court’s 
mandate issued in Lemasters, 456 S.W.3d 416.  Accordingly, this Court must address the 
timeliness of Mr. Lemasters’s motion for postconviction relief.  See Dorris v. State, 360 
S.W.3d 260, 268 (Mo. banc 2012) (“It is the court’s duty to enforce the mandatory time 
limits and the resulting complete waiver in the post-conviction rules[.]”). 
5 
 
 
Rule 29.15 authorizes those convicted of a felony after trial to collaterally challenge 
their convictions by claiming constitutional or jurisdictional defects.  If an appellate court 
orders a remand on direct appeal, Rule 29.15 provides that a postconviction motion 
challenging the judgment entered after remand be filed only after that new judgment or 
sentence becomes final.  Rule 29.15(b) specifies that, if no appeal is taken from the 
remanded judgment, a petitioner has 180 days to file a motion for postconviction relief.  If 
an appeal is taken from the remanded judgment, however, a motion for postconviction 
relief must be filed within 90 days of the appellate court’s mandate.  Rule 29.15(b).  
 
 
Mr. Lemasters challenged his conviction on direct appeal, and this Court issued its 
mandate directing the trial court to vacate his conviction on the second count of statutory 
sodomy. When an appellate court reverses a trial court’s judgment and remands the case 
with directions to enter a specific judgment, the directions “must be followed by the trial 
court without deviation . . . .”  Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 410 S.W.3d 
623, 633 (Mo. banc 2013) (emphasis added) (quoting Sebree v. Rosen, 374 S.W.2d 132, 
136 (Mo. 1964)).  After this Court’s mandate issued in Mr. Lemasters’s direct appeal, 
however, the trial court incorrectly entered on the docket sheet, “Affirmed,” disregarding 
this Court’s direction to “vacate its judgment with respect to the second count of statutory 
sodomy.”  See Lemasters, 456 S.W.3d at 426. 
 
The state argues that, because the “sole judgment of conviction that [Mr. Lemasters] 
sought to have set aside was affirmed by this Court,” the judgment of conviction became 
final when this Court issued its mandate affirming the conviction on that count.  This Court 
clarified in State v. Waters, No. SC97910, __ S.W.3d __ at *7 (Mo. banc Mar. 17, 2020), 
6 
 
however, that a judgment of conviction that resolves fewer than all counts against a 
defendant, while any count remains pending, is not final.  Accordingly, Mr. Lemasters’s 
conviction on the first count will not become final until the trial court complies with this 
Court’s mandate in the direct appeal. 
 
“There are two types of remands: (1) a general remand, which does not provide 
specific direction and leaves all issues open to consideration in the new trial; and (2) a 
remand with directions, which requires the trial court to enter a judgment in conformity 
with the mandate.”  Gerken v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Family Support Div., 415 S.W.3d 
734, 738 (Mo. App. 2013) (internal quotations omitted).  In Mr. Lemasters’s direct appeal, 
this Court issued a remand with specific directions.  When an appellate court provides 
specific directions to a circuit court, the circuit court “cannot modify, alter, amend, or 
deviate” from the appellate court’s directions.  Id. (internal quotations omitted).   
 
The trial court in the underlying criminal case failed to enter a judgment in 
conformity with the mandate of this Court. 3   The trial court may have concluded there 
                                              
3 Mr. Lemasters also claims there is a further failure to comply with this Court’s mandate 
because the mandate also directed he be transferred from the department of corrections to 
the Newton County jail “to await the further order and action of the said Circuit Court of 
Newton County.”  He is correct that has not occurred.  Because the original mandate has 
not been fully effectuated, this Court has authority to amend the mandate and has done so.  
The mandate in State v. Lemasters, SC94295 has been amended to remove the direction 
that Mr. Lemasters be transported from the department of corrections to the Newton 
County jail.  This is because it is not, and never was, necessary for Mr. Lemasters to be 
present in the courtroom when the trial court enters a new judgment correctly reflecting 
what occurred during his trial and sentencing.  See State v. Berry, 506 S.W.3d 357, 365 
(Mo. App. 2016) (“If the defendant is not returned for resentencing, the court has authority 
only to enter the sentence as orally pronounced.” (quoting State v. Burrell, 944 S.W.2d 
948, 951 (Mo. App. 1997)). 
7 
 
was no need to comply with this Court’s mandate because it had previously executed an 
amended judgment correcting the same error.4  Appellate mandates, however, require the 
trial court’s strict compliance.  See Smith, 410 S.W.3d at 633.  This Court’s mandate did 
not grant discretion to the trial court.  This Court in Lemasters specifically directed the trial 
court to “vacate its judgment with respect to the second count of statutory sodomy.”  456 
S.W.3d at 426.  The trial court could comply with this direction only by entering an 
amended judgment after the mandate’s issuance that correctly reflects what occurred 
during Mr. Lemasters’s trial and sentencing.   
 
Given the trial court’s failure to strictly comply with this Court’s mandate, no “new 
judgment” has yet resulted from Mr. Lemasters’s direct appeal, much less become final.5  
See Gerken, 415 S.W.3d at 738.   “A motion for post-conviction relief is a collateral attack 
on a final judgment of a court.”  McKay v. State, 520 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Mo. banc 2017) 
(internal quotations omitted).    Because the judgment of conviction in Mr. Lemasters’s 
criminal case is not yet a final judgment that triggers the running of the time period in 
which he can file a Rule 29.15 motion, his Rule 29.15 motion is premature.   
 
This Court has articulated the proper procedure for prematurely filed motions:  
                                              
4 The trial court in Mr. Lemasters’s criminal case had the power to correct its judgment 
without notice to the parties or the court of appeals where his appeal was then pending. 
Pirtle v. Cook, 956 S.W.2d 235, 241 (Mo. banc 1997).  Its failure to give notice of 
correction of its judgment, however, caused the parties to continue to seek such relief on 
appeal and this Court to issue an opinion and mandate directing the trial court to vacate a 
judgment that had previously been corrected.   
5 Significantly, this Court did not order the trial court to enter a judgment nunc pro tunc, 
which would not have affected the finality of the original judgment.  See Pirtle, 956 S.W.2d 
at 241.  Rather, its mandate gave specific directions with which the trial court did not 
comply.  See Lemasters, 456 S.W.3d at 426. 
8 
 
[W]here a premature post-conviction motion has been filed under Rule 29.15 
or Rule 24.035, it should be held pending the time for filing of the post-
conviction motion . . . .  At that point the premature motion, as filed or as 
supplemented within the time permitted for filing such a motion, should be 
considered filed by the motion court. 
 
Id.  A motion court’s ruling on a premature motion should be vacated on appeal and the 
cause remanded so that it may proceed once the challenged criminal judgment is final.6   
See id. at 788.  On remand, the motion court shall consider Mr. Lemasters’s pro se motion 
for postconviction relief filed when the time for filing a postconviction relief motion 
commences under Rule 29.15(b).  
Conclusion 
 
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of conviction is not final for purposes of 
appeal.  Therefore, Mr. Lemasters’s motion for postconviction relief is premature.  
Accordingly, the motion court’s judgment is vacated, and the cause is remanded.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  PATRICIA BRECKENRIDGE, JUDGE 
 
 
All concur. 
                                              
6 Because this issue is dispositive, the Court need not address Mr. Lemasters’s other claims 
of error.