BRANDEN SLAVENS , ) ) Appellant, ) )
vs. ) No. SD35379 ) Filed: February 7, 2019 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent

. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY
Honorable Thomas E. Mountjoy , Circuit Judge
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Branden Slavens (“ Slavens ”) appeals the denial, after an evidentiary hearing, of his
amended Rule 24.035 1 motion to set aside his convi ction s for first

- degree burglary, first

- degree robbery, first

- degree assault, armed criminal action , felonious restraint, third

- degree assault, and
two counts of first

- degree tampering with a motor vehicle.
In the timeliness statement in his brief , Slavens suggests that this case must be remanded to the motion court for an abandonment inquiry

. Th e State agrees in its brief . We reverse and

1 All rule references a re to Missouri Court Rules (2018 ).2 remand pursuant to the direction in Thomas v. State , 513 S.W.3d 370 (Mo.App. E.D. 2016) , and
Prine v. State , 527 S.W.3d 930 (Mo.App. S.D. 2017). Slavens entered guilty pleas to all charges on August 8, 2014

. H e was sentenced and delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections on April 15, 2015

. Slavens timely filed a

pro se Rule 24.035 motion on September 24, 2015

. The hearing court appointed counsel to represent Slavens on September 25, 2015. Stephen Harris (“Harris”) entered his appearance as
counsel for Slavens on October 1, 2015 , and was granted an additional thirty days to file the
amended motion. The guilty plea and sentencing transcripts were filed on October 30, 2015 , making the amended motion due on January 28, 2016. On November 23, 2015, Harris filed a motion to withdraw and requested re

- appointment
of counsel due to a conf lict of interest

. On December 3, 2015, the hearing court sustained Harris’s
motion to withdraw, re

- appointed counsel, and granted a thirty

- day extension of time, for a total of 90 days to file the amended motion. Newly appointed post

- conviction counsel entered an

appearance o n December 8, 2015, but did not file an amended motion until March 2, 2016

. This case presents the s ame issue regarding timeliness as appeared in Prine infra . In this case, as in Prine , the public defender originally assigned to represent Slavens moved to withdraw from the case and requested re

- appointment of counsel for Slavens. 527 S.W.3d at 931. The hearing court in Prine granted counsel’s motion and “purported to allow 90 addition al days for
new counsel to file an amended motion.” Id. As this Court explained in Prine , the appointment of a second post

- conviction public defender did not restart the clock for the filing of the amended motion. Id. at 932. Rather, t his
Court held tha t “[a]n untimely amended motion raises a presumption of abandonment that the motion court is duty bound to resolve after inquiry.” Id. (citing Moore v. State , 458 S.W.3d 822,3 825 (Mo. banc 2015). In this case, the motion court failed to conduct an abando nment inquiry, though required to do so.
We reverse and remand for the motion court to conduct a Moore abandonment hearing,
and for such further proceedings as warranted by Rule 24.035 . Slavens ’ poin ts on appeal are
denied as moot and will not be addressed.

WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., P. J.

- OPINION AUTHOR JEFFREY W. BATES, J.

- CONCURS DANIEL E. SCOTT, J.

- CONCURS