Sharp v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Henderson v. State

    372 S.W.3d 11 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that, in rare circumstances, courts have made an exception when the movant's pro se motion was not timely filed due to active interference by some third party

    Furthermore, Henderson does not respond to the State's allegation in this appeal that his pro se 24.035 motion was untimely. The movant has the burden of demonstrating the timely filing of a pro se motion for post-conviction relief. Sharp v. State, 936 S.W.2d 596, 597 (Mo.App.1996). Absent any recognized exception, a movant's failure to plead and prove a timely motion constitutes a waiver of any right to proceed under the rule.

  2. Henderson v. State

    WD73317 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 3, 2012)

    Furthermore, Henderson does not respond to the State's allegation in this appeal that his pro se 24.035 motion was untimely. The movant has the burden of demonstrating the timely filing of a pro se motion for post-conviction relief. Sharp v. State, 936 S.W.2d 596, 597 (Mo. App. 1996). Absent any recognized exception, a movant's failure to plead and prove a timely motion constitutes a waiver of any right to proceed under the rule.

  3. Washington v. State

    972 S.W.2d 347 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 7 times

    We need not address movant's appeal. The record shows movant's pro se Rule 24.035 motion was filed out of time. Rule 24.035(b) requires that a movant file a motion substantially in compliance with the applicable Criminal Procedure Form No. 40. Criminal Procedure Form No. 40 requires a movant to plead the date that he or she was delivered to the Department of Corrections. Sharp v. State, 936 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). Demonstration of timely filing of a pro se motion is a condition precedent to pleading a claim for postconviction relief. Id.