Title: Bearden v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC96515
State: Missouri
Issuer: Missouri Supreme Court
Date: October 31, 2017

SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
TODD BEARDEN, 
) 
) 
Appellant, 
) 
) 
v. 
) 
No. SC96515 
) 
STATE OF MISSOURI, 
) 
) 
Respondent. 
) 
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY 
The Honorable Sandy Martinez, Judge 
Todd Bearden appeals a judgment overruling his amended Rule 24.035 motion for 
post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.1  Bearden's amended motion was 
untimely, but the motion court did not conduct an abandonment inquiry.  Consequently, 
the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
The state charged Bearden with two counts of the class C felony of possession of a 
chemical with the intent to create a controlled substance in violation of § 195.420, RSMo 
Supp. 2010.2  Bearden pleaded guilty to both charges.  The circuit court sentenced Bearden 
1 The court of appeals transferred the case to this Court after opinion pursuant to Mo. Const. art. 
V, sec. 10.  
2 Effective January 1, 2017, § 195.420 was transferred to § 579.110.  
Opinion issued October 31, 2017
2 
 
to consecutive seven-year sentences, suspended execution of the sentences, and placed him 
on probation for five years.  Bearden did not appeal.  
In April 2015, the circuit court held a probation revocation hearing, revoked 
Bearden's probation, and executed his sentences.  Bearden was delivered to the department 
of corrections. 
Bearden timely filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.  The 
motion court appointed the public defender to represent Bearden.  On December 18, 2015, 
appointed counsel filed a transcript of the guilty plea, sentencing, and probation violation 
admissions.  On December 29, 2015, appointed counsel filed a transcript of Bearden's 
probation revocation hearing.  The motion court granted Bearden a 30-day extension of 
time.  Bearden filed his amended motion March 30, 2016.  The motion court denied relief 
without an evidentiary hearing.3  Bearden appeals. 
Abandonment 
Rule 24.035(g) filing deadlines are mandatory.  Stanley v. State, 420 S.W.3d 532, 
540 (Mo. banc 2014).  Both circuit and appellate courts "have a 'duty to enforce the 
mandatory time limits . . . even if the state does not raise the issue.'"  Price v. State, 422 
S.W.3d 292, 297 (Mo. banc 2014).  Accordingly, this Court will not consider the merits of 
a motion for post-conviction relief without first determining whether the motion was timely 
filed.   Gittemeier v. State, No. SC95953, 2017 WL 4002011, at *1 (Mo. banc Sept. 12, 
2017).  When appointed counsel fails to file a timely amended motion, this Court will 
                                                          
 
3 Bearden's amended Rule 24.035 motion al1eged: (1) there was an insufficient factual basis for 
his guilty pleas, (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of potential defenses, and     
(3) his guilty pleas were entered involuntarily during an unconstitutional group plea hearing.   
3 
 
remand the case to the motion court to determine whether appointed counsel abandoned 
the post-conviction movant.  Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822, 825-26 (Mo. banc 2015).4   
The Amended Motion Was Untimely 
Rule 24.035(g) provides:  
If no 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 a complete transcript 
consisting of the guilty plea and sentencing hearing has been filed in 
the trial court and counsel is appointed or (2) the date both a 
complete transcript has been filed in the trial court and an entry of 
appearance is filed by any counsel that is not appointed but enters an 
appearance on behalf of movant.  
 
  
Rule 24.035(g) defines a "complete transcript" as "consisting of" the transcript of 
the "guilty plea and sentencing hearing."  The "complete transcript" does not include a 
transcript of the probation revocation hearing.  Accordingly, the 60-day filing period began 
December 18, 2015, when appointed counsel filed a transcript of the guilty plea and 
sentencing hearing.  Given the 30-day extension granted by the motion court, Bearden's 
amended motion was due March 17, 2016.  Bearden's amended motion was filed out of 
time on March 30, 2016.   
Contrary to the plain language of Rule 24.035(g), Bearden asserts the transcript was 
not "complete" until December 29, 2015, when appointed counsel filed a transcript of the 
probation revocation hearing.  Bearden's argument is premised on the incorrect assumption 
his probation revocation hearing was part of his sentencing hearing.   
                                                          
 
4 The abandonment doctrine does not apply to retained counsel.  Gittemeier, 2017 WL 4002011, 
at *3. 
 
4 
 
A criminal "sentence" is the penalty for a particular offense.  McCulley v. State, 486 
S.W.2d 419, 423 (Mo. 1972).  When "a sentence is imposed but then its execution is 
suspended, the judgment is final and the defendant has a right of immediate appeal."  State 
ex rel. Poucher v. Vincent, 258 S.W.3d 62, 66 (Mo. banc 2008); see also Taylor v. State, 
25 S.W.3d 632, 633 (Mo. App. 2000) ("When a court suspends the execution of sentence, 
only the act of executing the sentence has been suspended; a criminal conviction has been 
entered and the sentence has been assessed.").  It follows that probation "is not a sentence 
nor could the conditions of probation be a sentence."  McCulley, 486 S.W.2d at 423; see 
also State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994) ("Probation is not part of the 
sentence.").  Instead, probation reduces the impact of a sentence and "operates 
independently of the criminal sentence."  State v. Fernow, 328 S.W.3d 429, 432 (Mo. App. 
2010).  A probation revocation hearing, therefore, "is a civil action and not a mere 
continuation of the earlier criminal proceeding."  State ex rel. Manion v. Elliot, 305 S.W.3d 
462, 464 (Mo. banc 2010). 
Because the judgment in Bearden's criminal case was final when the sentence was 
entered, it necessarily follows that the subsequent, civil action to revoke his probation was 
not a part of the previously concluded sentencing hearing.  Consequently, the Rule 
24.035(g) filing period began December 18, 2015, when appointed counsel filed the 
"complete transcript consisting of the guilty plea and sentencing hearing."  Including the 
30-day extension, Bearden's amended motion was due March 17, 2016.  Bearden's 
amended motion was filed out of time on March 30, 2016.   
5 
 
Bearden argues Rule 29.07(b)(4) demonstrates his probation revocation hearing was 
part of his "sentencing hearing" for purposes of determining commencement of the Rule 
24.035(g) filing period.  In pertinent part, Rule 29.07(b)(4) provides:  
If a defendant has a right to proceed under Rule 24.035 or Rule 29.15, 
the court at the conclusion of final sentencing shall advise the defendant 
of such right and shall examine the defendant as to the assistance of 
counsel received by the defendant.   
 
Bearden asserts the term "final sentencing" in Rule 29.07(d) implies an initial sentencing 
and, therefore, establishes sentencing is not a single procedure.  Bearden also argues the 
probation revocation hearing was his "final sentencing" because the circuit court first 
provided notice of his post-conviction rights during the probation revocation hearing.  
These arguments fail because probation revocation is not sentencing.5  Therefore, filing 
the transcript of the probation revocation hearing had no bearing on the timeliness of 
Bearden's amended motion.   
Conclusion 
 
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
____________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Zel M. Fischer, Chief Justice 
 
All concur.   
                                                          
 
5 In Hewitt v. State 518 S.W.3d 227, 231 (Mo. App. 2017), the court of appeals rejected a similar 
argument by noting Rule 29.07(b)(4) obligates the court to notify the defendant of the right to 
proceed under Rule 24.035 only "[i]f the defendant has a right to proceed under Rule 24.035."  
(Emphasis in original).  The right to proceed under Rule 24.035 is available only after an offender 
is "delivered to the custody of the department of corrections."  Like Bearden, the movant in Hewitt 
was not delivered to the department of corrections "and, therefore, had no right to proceed under 
Rule 24.035 at that time."  Hewitt, 518 S.W.3d at 331.  Rule 29.07(b)(4) did not obligate the circuit 
court to inform Bearden of Rule 24.035 rights and does not alter the fact that Bearden's probation 
revocation hearing was not part of his sentencing hearing.