In the underlying case, Middleton was convicted by a jury in 1991 for first degree murder and armed criminal action in the shooting death of his wife, Katherine Middleton. On April 5, 1991, he was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without parole for the murder conviction and two hundred years for the armed criminal action conviction. In detailing the history of this case, we borrow extensively from the “Facts and Procedural History” set forth in this court's 2011 opinion, Middleton v. State, 350 S.W.3d 489, 490–491 (Mo.App.2011).On September 9, 1991, Middleton filed a timely pro seRule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. After the trial court appointed a public defender to prepare an amended motion, Middleton hired private counsel.
In the underlying case, Middleton was convicted by a jury in 1991 for first degree murder and armed criminal action in the shooting death of his wife, Katherine Middleton. On April 5, 1991, he was sentenced to concurrent sentences of life imprisonment without parole for the murder conviction and two hundred years for the armed criminal action conviction. In detailing the history of this case, we borrow extensively from the "Facts and Procedural History" set forth in this court's 2011 opinion, Middleton v. State, 350 S.W.3d 489, 490-491 (Mo. App. 2011). On September 9, 1991, Middleton filed a timely pro se Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. After the trial court appointed a public defender to prepare an amended motion, Middleton hired private counsel.
We acknowledge that Missouri Courts have held that the “judgment” denomination requirement set forth under Rule 74.01(a) applies to appeals from motions to “re-open” post-conviction proceedings. See, e.g., Middleton v. State, 350 S.W.3d 489, 491–92 (Mo.App. W.D.2011); Queen v. State, 214 S.W.3d 410, 411 (Mo.App. E.D.2007); Williams v. State, 208 S.W.3d 307, 309 (Mo.App. E.D.2006); Belger v. State, 202 S.W.3d 96, 97 (Mo.App. E.D.2006); Tyler, 229 S.W.3d at 105. However, these cases were decided prior to Eastburn and did not consider the motions to “re-open” as motions for post-conviction relief due to abandonment filed under Rule 29.15.