In the Missouri Court ot` Appeals
Eastern District
DIVISION FOUR
TERRY 'l`. WATSON, ) ED103245
)
Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court
) ofthe City of St. Louis
v_ ) 1322-CC00457
)
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Honorable Bryan L. Hettenbaeh
)
Respondent. ) Fiied: September 13, 2016
Introduction
Terry Watson (Movant) appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his
motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15l Without an evidentiary hearing, as Well
as the motion court’s denial of his motion to amend the judgment We reverse and remand
for an evidentiary hearing on the claims in Movant’s Rule 29.15 motion.
Background
The State charged l\/lovant with robbery in the first degree, armed criminal action,
resisting arrest, and trafficking in the Second degree. A jury convicted Movant of all
charges except armed criminal aetion, and the trial court sentenced Movant to a total of 18
1 All rule references are to Mo. R. Crim. P. (2013), unless otherwise indicated
years’ imprisonment This Court affirmed Movant’s convictions and sentence on appeal.
State v. Watson, 386 S.W.3d 907 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).
Movant timely filed a pro se motion to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment on
February ll, 2013, and later an amended motion through counsel.2 The motion court
denied Movant’s amended motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding that the record
conclusively refuted all of Movant’s claims. Movant filed a motion to amend the judgment
under Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 78.07(c), arguing that his post-conviction counsel
had abandoned him in that she never consulted with him before filing an amended motion
3 The motion
and had substantially altered the factual allegations in his original motion.
court denied Movant’s motion to amend the judgment, finding it amounted to an allegation
of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. This appeal follows
Standard of Review
Our review of the motion court’s denial of a motion f`or post-conviction relief is
“limited to a determination of whether the findings of fact and conclusions of law are
clearly erroneous.” Hicl