In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Eastern District
DIVISION TWO
TERRENCE HENDRICKS, ) No. ED102067
)
Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of
) the City of St. Louis
vs. )
) Honorable David C. Mason
STATE OF MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. ) Filed: February 9, 2016
Introduction
Terrence Hendricks (Movant) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St.
Louis denying his Rule 29.151 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant asserts one point on
appeal. Because Movant’s amended motion was untimely filed and the motion court made no
independent abandonment inquiry, we reverse and remand. The State and Movant agree remand
is required.
Background
Movant filed a timely pro se Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief on June 30,
2011. The motion court appointed counsel on July 22, 2011. On July 29, 2011, counsel entered
an appearance and moved for a 30-day extension to file an amended motion. The motion court
never entered an order ruling on or granting the extension. Then, on October 20, 2011,
1
Unless otherwise noted, all references to Rules are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2015).
appointed counsel filed an amended motion. Ultimately, after an evidentiary hearing, the motion
court denied both of the claims in Movant’s amended motion. Movant appeals.
Discussion
The Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Moore v. State, 458 S.W.3d 822 (Mo. banc
2015), governs our analysis. In Moore, the movant filed a timely pro se motion, but the
movant’s appointed counsel filed an amended motion outside of the sixty-day deadline. Id. at
825. The movant’s amended motion was untimely. Id. The Court held that “[w]hen an untimely
amended motion is filed, the motion court has a duty to undertake an independent inquiry . . . to
determine if abandonment occurred.” Id. (internal quotation omitted) (citation omitted).
Because the motion court did not make an independent inquiry into abandonment, the Supreme
Court reversed the motion court’s judgment and remanded the matter to the motion court, as it is
“the appropriate forum to conduct such an inquiry.” Id. at 826.
Here, post-conviction counsel was appointed on July 22, 2011, after this Court entered its
mandate. Therefore, Movant’s amended motion was due sixty days later, on September 20,
2011. On July 29, 2011, post-conviction counsel requested a 30-day extension on the filing of
the amended motion. If granted, this extension would have extended the due date of the
amended motion to October 20, 2011. However, because the motion court never ruled on the
motion for extension, the due date for the amended motion remained September 20, 2011. Post-
conviction counsel did not file an amended motion until October 20, 2011.
Therefore, the amended motion was filed untimely and the motion court was required to
perform an independent inquiry into whether Movant was abandoned. Because the motion court
failed to do so, in accordance with Moore, we are required to remand the matter to the motion
court to conduct such an inquiry. The State and Movant agree remand is required.
2
Conclusion
The judgment of the motion court is reversed and the case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
_______________________________
Philip M. Hess, Presiding Judge
Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J. and
Angela T. Quigless, J. concur.
3