Waring v. State

Full title: Walter Dean Waring, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Date published: Apr 7, 2015

466 S.W.3d 570 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)

Opinion

No. SD 33507

2015-04-7

Walter Dean Waring, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CEDAR COUNTY Honorable James R. Bickel, Judge Appellant's attorney: Amy M. Bartholow, Columbia Respondent's attorneys: Chris Koster and Andrew C. Hooper

PER CURIAM.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CEDAR COUNTY Honorable James R. Bickel, Judge
Appellant's attorney: Amy M. Bartholow, Columbia Respondent's attorneys: Chris Koster and Andrew C. Hooper
(Before Francis, P.J./C.J., Bates, J., and Scott, J.)

PER CURIAM.

Walter Waring timely filed an indigency affidavit and pro se motion for Rule 24.035 relief from his felony DWI convictions. The motion court summarily denied relief without appointing counsel for Waring,who claims this was error. The state agrees, as do we.

“When an indigent movant files a pro se motion, the court shall cause counsel to be appointed for the movant.” Rule 24.035(e). Such appointment “is mandatory.” Ramsey v. State, 438 S.W.3d 521, 522 (Mo.App.2014). “A motion court that dismisses a pro se Rule 24.035 motion without appointing counsel commits clear error.” Id. See also Wilson v. State, 415 S.W.3d 727, 728 (Mo.App.2013).

We reverse, remand, and direct the motion court to appoint counsel for Waring and proceed further after that appointment. Id.