Opinion ID: 2433040
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: pro se motion and verification

Text: The State argues that the motion court did not have jurisdiction to rule on defendant's 29.15 pro se motion because it was not properly verified. Rule 29.15 requires: The movant shall verify the motion, declaring that he has listed all grounds for relief known to him and acknowledging his understanding that he waives any ground for relief known to him that is not listed in the motion. In Crawford v. State, 834 S.W.2d 749, 752 (Mo. banc 1992), we concluded that verified as used in Rule 29.15 means that a declaration must be made in a manner that is supported by a movant's oath or affirmation. A movant does that by subscribing to the required declaration while in the presence of someone authorized by Missouri law to administer oaths and affirmations. Id. For inmates such as defendant White, post-conviction motions are generally verified by a notary located in the correctional facility. In our experience, defendants who are incarcerated frequently complain that they have difficulty arranging for a notary public to verify their post-conviction motions so that they can be timely filed. We pass no judgment on the validity of this excuse. But death penalty cases, often involving heinous crimes, have become clouded by arguments regarding verification and the filing of paper work. Missouri courts need to see through this blizzard of paper and technicalities that fog the underlying issues so that they can reach a just and timely result, especially in death penalty cases. The public is frustrated with the drawn-out nature of death penalty cases and, therefore, we need to refine the post-conviction motion requirements to expedite the proceedings. Although we wish to avoid any unnecessary technicalities that hinder a movant's ability to file timely a pro se 29.15 motion, we remain stringent about the time requirements for post-conviction motions. To alleviate one technicality, however, we hold that henceforth, for purposes of filing a pro se 29.15 motion, the defendant's signature will be sufficient verification that he has listed all grounds for relief known to him and acknowledging his understanding that he waives any ground for relief known to him that is not listed in the motion. Rule 29.15(d). We will still strictly adhere to the requirement that all grounds not raised in the pro se motion are waived, with the exception of those filed in a timely amended 29.15 motion. Although we are relaxing the verification requirement for defendants' pro se 29.15 motions, we will continue to require amended motions filed pursuant to Rule 29.15(e) to be properly verified. This is in part because [a]n amended motion differs significantly from the original motion. Bullard v. State, 853 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Mo. banc 1993). The original pro se motion is relatively informal and need only give notice to the trial court, the appellate court, and the State that movant intends to pursue relief under Rule 29.15. Id. On the other hand, an amended motion is a final pleading, which requires legal expertise. Counsel must be appointed to represent indigent movants in order to ensure its proper drafting. Id., citing Rule 29.15(e). Since the amended motion is drafted by appointed counsel, it is necessary to have the amended motion verified in order to ensure that movant believes it is accurate and constitutes all grounds for relief known to movant. Additionally, this helps to ensure that movant is adequately represented. We will, therefore, continue to require the verification of amended 29.15(e) motions. In its order dated August 28, 1992, the motion court dismissed all of White's 29.15 motions because they were not properly verified. However, the court stated that in the alternative, it overruled defendant's 29.15 motion on the merits for all the reasons stated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law dated August 1, 1990. In those findings of fact and conclusions of law, the motion court failed to rule on all the defendant's claims set forth in his pro se 29.15 motion. Because defendant's amended 29.15 motion specifically stated that it was intended to supplement and not supercede movant's pro se motion, the motion court should have made findings on all the issues raised in defendant's pro se 29.15 motion. Therefore, we remand back to the motion court for findings of fact and conclusions of law on defendant's pro se 29.15 motion. On remand, the motion court shall conform to all of this Court's holdings in Barry v. State, 850 S.W.2d 348 (Mo. banc 1993).