Propst v. State

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the motion court’s judgment dismissing Appellant’s Rule 24.035 motion, which was filed one day late, as untimely. On appeal, Appellant argued that a narrow exception applies to allow the date filing of pro se motions for post-conviction relief because the public defender who assumed the duty of filing the pro se motion actively interfered with the filing of the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the motion court’s judgment dismissing the motion as untimely, holding that the third-party interference exception did not apply in this case because Appellant did not prepare the motion himself or take any steps to ensure the motion was filed on time. View "Propst v. State" on Justia Law

Posted in: Criminal Law

Comments are closed.