MARION W. KASPARIE, JR., Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent. , 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 994 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • MARION W. KASPARIE, JR.,                      )
    )
    Movant-Appellant,             )
    )
    v.                                            )      No. SD34400
    )      Filed: October 6, 2016
    STATE OF MISSOURI,                            )
    )
    Respondent-Respondent.        )
    )
    APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POLK COUNTY
    Honorable Lisa Carter Henderson, Associate Circuit Judge
    REVERSED AND REMANDED
    Marion Kasparie, Jr. (Movant) appeals from the denial of his pro se Rule 29.15
    motion.1 He contends the motion court clearly erred by denying Movant’s motion without
    appointing counsel to represent Movant, as required by Rule 29.15(e). Because this
    contention has merit, we reverse the order denying relief and remand for further
    proceedings consistent with this opinion.2
    1
    All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2016).
    2
    The State concedes the case must be remanded because of this error.
    After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second-degree domestic assault.
    The trial court imposed a seven-year sentence, suspended execution of same and placed
    Movant on probation for five years. This Court affirmed Movant’s conviction on direct
    appeal. Mandate issued on January 27, 2016. On February 17, 2016, Movant filed a timely
    pro se Rule 29.15 motion. See Rule 29.15(b). The motion included a completed and
    notarized in forma pauperis affidavit. On March 11, 2016, the motion court denied relief
    without having appointed counsel to represent Movant. This appeal followed.
    We review the motion court’s ruling for clear error. Rule 29.15(k); Williams v.
    State, 
    168 S.W.3d 433
    , 439 (Mo. banc 2005). In relevant part, Rule 29.15(e) states that
    “[w]hen an indigent movant files a pro se motion, the court shall cause counsel to be
    appointed for the movant.” 
    Id. As Movant
    contends, the motion court’s failure to appoint
    counsel was clearly erroneous. See Bain v. State, 
    59 S.W.3d 625
    , 627 (Mo. App. 2001);
    Stroud v. State, 
    978 S.W.2d 785
    , 786 (Mo. App. 1998); State v. Wendleton, 
    936 S.W.2d 120
    , 124 (Mo. App. 1996). The order denying relief is reversed. The cause is remanded
    for appointment of counsel and further proceedings pursuant to Rule 29.15.
    JEFFREY W. BATES, P.J. – OPINION AUTHOR
    DON E. BURRELL, J. – CONCUR
    MARY W. SHEFFIELD, C.J. – CONCUR
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SD34400

Citation Numbers: 520 S.W.3d 808, 2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 994

Judges: Bates, Burrell, Sheffield

Filed Date: 10/6/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/14/2024