Title: Hopkins v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC95916
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: April 25, 2017

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
STEWART R. HOPKINS, 
) 
) 
Appellant, 
) 
) 
v. 
) 
No. SC95916 
) 
 STATE OF MISSOURI, 
) 
) 
Respondent. 
) 
Appeal from The Circuit Court of Taney County 
The Honorable Laura J. Johnson, Judge 
Stewart Hopkins (hereinafter, “Movant”) appeals from a judgment overruling his 
Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.1  As in State 
v. Creighton, No. SC95527, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mo. banc April 25, 2017), the threshold
issue is whether the motion court appointed counsel and triggered the Rule 29.15(g) 
timelines for filing an amended motion by notifying the public defender that Movant filed 
a pro se motion.  Consistent with Creighton, this Court holds the notification was not an 
appointment.  Movant’s amended motion was timely because it was filed within the 
applicable time period following counsel’s entry of appearance.    
This Court further holds the motion court did not clearly err in denying relief on 
Movant’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the introduction into 
1 This Court acquired jurisdiction by granting transfer following an opinion by the court 
of appeals.  Mo. Const. art. V, sec.10.   
Opinion issued April 25, 2017
2 
 
evidence of telephone calls recorded while Movant was incarcerated.  The judgment is 
affirmed. 
Background 
A jury convicted Movant of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action 
for killing his ex-wife (hereinafter, “Victim”).  The circuit court sentenced Movant to 
concurrent terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for murder and 
twenty-five years for armed criminal action.  Movant’s convictions and sentences were 
affirmed on direct appeal.  State v. Hopkins, No. SD32486 (Mo. App. S.D. May 5, 2014). 
Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdicts, the evidence at trial 
showed that Movant and Victim engaged in an argument in a motel room.   During the 
argument, Movant called another of his ex-wives.  Movant spoke to that ex-wife’s 
boyfriend and, when told she was unavailable, stated that he had killed Victim.  
The next morning, a motel housekeeper found Victim’s body on the floor of the 
motel room.  The housekeeper called the motel manager, who called 911. The manager 
and the housekeeper observed Victim lying on the floor, on her back, in a puddle of blood 
with a cut across her neck.  Police and emergency personnel arrived and confirmed 
Victim was deceased.  An autopsy concluded that Victim sustained twenty sharp injury 
wounds.  
Movant was arrested in a motel room in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  During a police 
interrogation, Movant disclosed the details of how he killed Victim.  According to 
Movant, he and Victim began arguing.  Victim slashed at Movant with a knife.  Movant 
responded by slashing at Victim with his own knife.  Movant then took Victim’s knife 
3 
 
and threw it into the parking lot.  Movant stated everything after that point was a “cloudy 
area,” but he proceeded to describe how he stabbed Victim in the throat.  Movant then 
described Victim’s appearance after she died.   
There was also DNA evidence linking Movant to Victim’s murder.  A mixture of 
Movant’s blood and Victim’s blood was on the handle of Movant’s knife.  Only Victim’s 
blood was on the blade.  
Finally, the jury heard recordings of three telephone calls Movant made from jail.  
In the first phone call, Movant said that he took the knife away from Victim, threw it in 
the parking lot, and then drew his knife because he “had to kill her.”  Movant also stated 
he wanted to be transferred to a different correctional center.  In the second call, Movant 
said he would plead self-defense because Victim had her knife and “got me first.”  
In the third call, Movant said that he could not wait to get out of jail and back to the 
department of corrections.  Movant also said he was not going to take his case to trial.  
Following his convictions and unsuccessful direct appeal, Movant filed a timely 
pro se motion for post-conviction relief on July 16, 2014.  On August 18, 2014, the 
motion court entered an “Order of Notification” stating:  
The Court orders the Circuit Clerk to notify the Central Appellate 
Division for the State Public Defender of the filing of this 24.035 
[sic] action and to provide the State Public Defender with a copy of 
Movant’s Form 40. 
 
The Circuit Clerk is ordered to furnish to the State Public Defender 
any and all pleadings from this file or the underlying criminal case 
that the State Public Defender may request. 
 
 
Movant’s public defender entered his appearance on September 26, 2014.  The 
motion court sustained Movant’s request for a thirty-day extension of time to file an 
4 
 
amended motion.  On December 26, 2014, post-conviction counsel filed an amended 
motion on Movant’s behalf.  The amended motion did not incorporate Movant’s pro se 
claims.  Movant waived an evidentiary hearing and submitted his motion to the court on 
the basis of trial counsel’s deposition. 
As relevant to this appeal, the amended motion alleged trial counsel was 
ineffective for failing to object to evidence of the telephone calls recorded while Movant 
was incarcerated.  Movant alleged the telephone calls informed the jury of his criminal 
history and, therefore, constituted inadmissible and prejudicial evidence of his propensity 
to commit crimes. 
The motion court denied relief.  The motion court found that, even if the phone 
calls were inadmissible and a reasonably competent attorney in similar circumstances 
would have objected, Movant failed to meet his burden of proving prejudice from 
counsel’s deficient representation.  The motion court found Movant’s police statement, 
giving an account of the murder, constituted overwhelming evidence of guilt.  The 
motion court did not address Movant’s pro se claims.   
Movant raises two points on appeal.  First, Movant asserts that his amended 
motion “arguably” was untimely and that the motion court erred by failing to conduct an 
abandonment inquiry.  Second, Movant asserts that, if his amended motion was filed 
timely, then the motion court clearly erred by denying relief on his claim that counsel was 
ineffective for failing to object to evidence of the recorded phone calls.   
5 
 
Standard of Review 
This Court reviews a judgment denying a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction 
relief to determine whether the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are 
clearly erroneous.  Rule 29.15(k).   The motion court’s findings and conclusions are 
clearly erroneous only if a full review of the record leaves the reviewing court with “the 
definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made.”  Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 
822, 829 (Mo. banc 2015) (quoting Williams v. State, 168 S.W.3d 433, 439 (Mo. banc 
2005)).    
The amended motion was filed timely 
Rule 29.15(g) establishes the timelines for filing an amended motion.  In relevant 
part, Rule 29.15(g) provides: 
If an appeal of the judgment sought to be vacated, set aside, or 
corrected is taken, the amended motion shall be filed within sixty days 
of the earlier of:  (1) the date both the mandate of the appellate court 
is issued and counsel is appointed or (2) the date both the mandate of 
the appellate court is issued and an entry of appearance is filed by any 
counsel that is not appointed but enters an appearance on behalf of 
movant. 
 
Rule 29.15(g) also provides that the motion court can extend the sixty-day 
deadline for one additional period not to exceed thirty days.  Thus, as in this case, a 
movant can have up to ninety days to file a timely amended motion.  If counsel fails to 
file a timely amended motion for post-conviction relief, the case must be remanded for an 
independent inquiry into whether the movant was abandoned by post-conviction counsel.  
Moore, 458 S.W.3d at 825-26. 
6 
 
For the reasons explained in Creighton,  ___ S.W.3d ___ , decided concurrently 
with this case, this Court holds the motion court’s notification was not an appointment.  
The Rule 29.15(g) filing period commenced when Movant’s public defender entered his 
appearance.  Therefore, Movant’s amended motion was timely because it was filed within 
ninety days of counsel’s entry of appearance.2   
Counsel was not ineffective 
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a movant must prove “by a 
preponderance of the evidence that (1) trial counsel failed to exercise the level of skill 
and diligence that reasonably competent counsel would exercise in a similar situation and 
(2)the movant was prejudiced by that failure.”  Hoeber  v. State, 488 S.W.3d 648, 655 
(Mo. banc 2016) (quoting Dorsey v. State, 448 S.W.3d 276, 286-87 (Mo. banc 2014)).   A 
movant must satisfy both prongs of the test to obtain post-conviction relief.  Id.   
To establish prejudice, “a movant must show a reasonable probability that, but for 
counsel’s errors, the outcome would have been different.”  Id.  “A reasonable probability 
exists when there is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”  Id.   
In his amended motion, Movant alleged trial counsel was ineffective for failing to 
object to evidence of the telephone calls recorded while Movant was in jail.  Movant 
argues the telephone calls reference his history of incarceration and, therefore, constitute 
inadmissible and prejudicial evidence of his propensity to commit crimes.   
                                                          
 
2 The motion court did not err by declining to adjudicate Movant’s pro se claims.  
Movant’s timely amended motion was the operative pleading, and it did not incorporate 
Movant’s pro se motion.   
7 
 
Even if this Court assumes, for the sake of argument, that counsel should have 
objected, Movant has not demonstrated the prejudice required to establish ineffective 
assistance of counsel.  The evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Victim’s blood was on 
the blade of Movant’s knife.  Movant explained how this came to be when he gave the 
police a detailed account of how he repeatedly stabbed the Victim and, ultimately, 
inflicted the fatal wound.  Movant’s argument relies on the speculative assumption that 
the jury convicted him of murder based on a propensity inference rather than his 
confession and the corroborating physical evidence. Movant’s argument does not 
undermine this Court’s confidence in the outcome of the trial.  Therefore, the motion 
court did not clearly err by denying relief. 
Conclusion 
 
Movant’s amended motion for post-conviction relief was filed timely.  The 
judgment denying Movant’s motion for post-conviction relief is affirmed.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
         ____________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
GEORGE W. DRAPER III, JUDGE 
 
Breckenridge, C.J., Fischer, Stith, Wilson and Russell, JJ., concur.