Opinion ID: 1872193
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The failure to verify the motion can be corrected

Text: The parties debate whether Belcher's failure to verify his motion precludes relief. [6] Because this issue may arise on remand, the Court offers the following observations. Rules 67.01 and 67.03 govern the effects of dismissals both with and without prejudice. Rule 67.06 governs the ability to file an amended motion upon dismissal. Rule 67.03 provides that [a]ny involuntary dismissal shall be without prejudice unless the court in its order for dismissal shall otherwise specify. Rule 67.01 states that [a] dismissal without prejudice permits the party to bring another civil action for the same cause, unless the civil action is otherwise barred. Rule 67.06 provides, in relevant part, that [o]n sustaining a motion to dismiss a claim, counterclaim or cross-claim the court shall freely grant leave to amend and shall specify the time within which the amendment shall be made or amended pleading filed. Actions for post-conviction DNA testing are governed by the rules of civil procedure insofar as applicable. Section 547.035.1. To determine whether a rule applies in the context of post-conviction review, the essential inquiry is whether the rule enhances, conflicts with, or is of neutral consequence to the purposes of the post-conviction rule in question. State ex rel. Nixon v. Daugherty, 186 S.W.3d 253, 254 (Mo. banc 2006). In the context of motions under Rules 24.035 and 29.15, Rules 67.01 and 67.03 do not apply. State v. McMillin, 783 S.W.2d 82, 89-90 (Mo. banc 1990) (abrogated on other grounds by Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992)); Williams v. State, 171 S.W.3d 158, 159 (Mo.App.2005). But this does not end the inquiry as to motions under section 547.035. While Rules 24.035 and 29.15 have unyielding time restrictions and prohibit successive motions, section 547.035 has neither. For example, that section specifically contemplates technological developments that will permit later testing; where new testing techniques become available that shed doubt on previous findings, subsequent motions are permitted. Section 547.035.2(3)(a). This distinction demonstrates the similar, yet separate, roles contemplated by the various types of post-conviction actions. Rules 24.035 and 29.15 are concerned about the fairness of the process that was used to obtain the conviction, while the DNA statute focuses on the real concern that DNA technology could produce exonerating results. Hudson v. State, 190 S.W.3d 434, 440 (Mo.App.2006). While some analogy to the post-conviction rules is appropriate, the post-conviction rules' procedures should not be adopted wholesale into actions under section 547.035. The objective of each remedy must be carefully examined and governed by the rules of civil procedure insofar as applicable to that remedy. If on remand the petition in this case should be dismissed for failure to comply with the verification requirement of the statute, a corrected or amended petition as permitted by Rules 67.01, 67.03, or 67.06 can be filed. [7]