Opinion ID: 835847
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Mura Matter

Text: In June 1993, Mura pleaded guilty to a charge of sexual abuse of his daughter. Later that year, Mura's daughter allegedly recanted her allegation of abuse. Mura then retained the accused to represent him in post-conviction proceedings. In October 1993, the accused filed a petition for post-conviction relief based in part on the alleged recantation and the failure of Mura's original lawyer to investigate the possibility that another person had abused Mura's child. Due to a calendaring error, the accused filed the petition one day late. [1] In January 1994, the state filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it had not been filed timely. On January 30, 1994, the accused sent Mura two letters. The first letter included a copy of the state's motion to dismiss, informed Mura that he need not be present at the February 14, 1994, hearing on the state's motion, and stated that Mura and the accused would have to discuss the accused's further participation in the case in light of Mura's financial situation. The second letter informed Mura of the February 28, 1994, trial date and again emphasized that they would have to discuss attorney fees before the accused would proceed further with his representation of Mura. Neither letter discussed with Mura the potential import of the state's motion to dismiss. In addition, although the accused arguably had committed malpractice by failing to meet the post-conviction filing deadline, neither letter suggested in any way that a potential conflict of interest could arise out of the accused's error or suggested that Mura consider seeking independent legal advice. The accused met with Mura on February 1, 1994. According to a February 2, 1994, memorandum that the accused dictated, the accused informed Mura at the meeting that his case had slipped substantially as a result of not getting the little girl to the psychologist back in October or November, 1993. The accused further informed Mura that he would not continue to work on the case without getting paid and that he would not blame Mura for dismissing the case at this time and cutting his losses. The memorandum does not state that the accused discussed the motion to dismiss with Mura other than to remind Mura that the hearing was imminent. The accused responded to the state's motion to dismiss on February 13, 1994. The accused's memorandum in opposition and accompanying affidavit argued that the trial court should deny the motion because the accused had caused the untimely filing and the accused's delay was not attributable to Mura. Although the accused testified at the trial panel hearing that he sent a copy of his response to Mura, Mura did not testify that he received that response, and the accused's time sheet entries do not indicate that the accused sent a copy of the response to Mura. At the February 14, 1994, hearing, the trial court granted the state's motion to dismiss, concluding that the petition had not been filed timely and had not alleged facts that constituted grounds for the late filing. On February 21, 1994, the accused informed Mura by letter that the court had dismissed his petition due to a missed deadline and that Mura had 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal.