Williams v. State

683 S.W.3d 339

Jermaine D. WILLIAMS, Appellant,

v.STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 85546

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: January 30, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cass County, The Honorable R. Michael Wagner, Judge

Annette Wallace, Kansas City, for Appellant.

Alex Beezley, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before Division Two: Janet Sutton, P.J., and Alok Ahuja and Mark D. Pfeiffer, JJ.

Alok Ahuja, Judge

In 2017, Jermaine Williams pleaded guilty to multiple felonies in the Circuit Court of Cass County. Following his sentencing, he filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 24.035; Williams’ appointed counsel filed both a first and second amended motion on his behalf. The circuit court addressed the merits of the claims in the first amended motion, but did not address the separate claims in the second amended motion. Williams appeals, contending that the circuit court erroneously failed to address the claims contained in his second amended motion. The State concedes that Williams’ second amended motion was timely filed, and that the circuit court erred by failing to address each of the claims raised in that motion. We agree. Because the circuit court failed to address all of the claims asserted in Williams’ operative motion, its judgment was not final under Rule 74.01(b). We accordingly dismiss the current appeal, to permit the circuit court to address the claims raised in Williams’ second amended motion in the first instance.

Factual Background

In 2013, Williams was charged in the circuit court with first-degree robbery; armed criminal action; first-degree burglary; two counts of kidnapping; and one count of tampering with a motor vehicle in the first degree. Case No. 13CA-CR00126. The State alleged that Williams was a prior and persistent offender. The charges stemmed from events which occurred on May 29, 2012, when Williams and two others drove to a home in Cass County in a stolen vehicle; unlawfully entered the home while two victims were present; restrained the victims; and displayed a deadly weapon in order to steal jewelry.

Williams entered an initial guilty plea to all six charges on April 17, 2017. The State agreed to cap its sentencing recommendation at eighteen years’ imprisonment on the counts of robbery and armed criminal action, fifteen years on the count of burglary and on both kidnapping counts, and seven years on the tampering charge. The circuit court initially accepted Williams’ guilty plea, and set the matter for sentencing.

At the June 5, 2017 sentencing hearing, the court sua sponte set aside Williams’ guilty plea and set the matter over for trial. The judge stated that, after hearing the victim impact statements, he could no longer accept a plea agreement which limited Williams’ punishment to a term of 18 years’ imprisonment.

Williams’ counsel filed a motion to have the trial judge recused from the case, which the court granted.

On August 14, 2017, the court held a second plea hearing, in front of a different judge. Williams pleaded guilty to five of the original six felony charges; the State voluntarily dismissed the count of tampering. After hearing arguments and evidence, the circuit court sentenced Williams to eighteen years on each count, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

Williams filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under Supreme Court Rule 24.035 on September 14, 2017. The circuit court appointed counsel for Williams. On September 29, 2017, the court granted counsel’s request for a thirty-day extension of time within which to file an amended motion, allowing the amended motion to be filed "within ninety (90) days of the date that the entire guilty plea and sentencing hearing transcripts are filed."

The transcripts of Williams’ initial guilty plea and sentencing hearings were filed in the circuit court on July 16, 2018. Transcripts of the August 2017 hearings - which actually resulted in Williams’ convictions and sentencing - were not filed in the circuit court at that time.

Williams was subsequently delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections on July 9, 2019, after having served a sentence in Kansas. Appointed counsel filed an amended motion for post-conviction relief on Williams’ behalf on October 7, 2019. That first amended motion raised four claims. The first amended motion alleged that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to a trial setting which was inconsistent with Williams’ demand for a speedy trial, and his demand for prompt disposition of detainers filed against him. The motion also alleged that Williams’ guilty pleas were not knowing and voluntary because neither the circuit court, nor plea counsel, adequately explained to Williams the rights he would be waiving by pleading guilty.

Williams’ appointed post-conviction counsel was permitted to withdraw his appearance on January 4, 2022, and new, privately retained counsel entered her appearance.

The circuit court held a hearing on Williams’ first amended motion for postconviction relief on January 27, 2022, at which Williams and his plea counsel testified.

Following the hearing, Williams’ counsel discovered that the transcripts of his August 2017 plea and sentencing hearings had not been filed with the circuit court. Counsel filed those transcripts on January 31, 2022.

On February 10, 2022, Williams’ counsel filed a motion asking the circuit court to rule that, because the August 2017 transcripts had not previously been filed, the time for Williams to file an amended motion did not begin to run until January 31, 2022, and his amended motion would not be due until May 2, 2022, ninety days later. The circuit court did not rule on the timeliness issue at that time.

On March 13, 2022, Williams’ counsel filed a second amended post-conviction relief motion. The second amended motion contained five claims, four of which were not raised in the first amended motion. The new claims asserted in the second amended motion alleged: that Williams’ plea counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the original trial judge withdrew Williams’ first guilty plea sua sponte, and for failing to move to dismiss the charges thereafter; that the withdrawal of Williams’ original plea subjected him to double jeopardy; and that the second trial judge erroneously failed to dismiss the charges against Williams with prejudice due to the double jeopardy violation.

On April 12, 2022, the circuit court rejected Williams’ claim that he had the right to file a timely second amended motion for post-conviction relief in 2022, because the August 2017 plea and sentencing transcripts had not previously been filed. On the same day, the court issued its judgment denying Williams post-conviction relief. The judgment explicitly stated that the court only addressed the claims asserted in Williams' September 2017 first amended motion; the court stated that "[a]ny claims not stated within the [first] Amended Motion are deemed waived."

On April 20, 2022, Williams filed a motion to amend the judgment under Rule 78.07(c), arguing that the circuit court was required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law addressing all of the claims in Williams’ second amended motion for post-conviction relief, The court did not rule on that motion. Williams' post-judgment motion was deemed denied ninety days after its filing, on July 19, 2022, by operation of Rule 81.05(a)(2)(A). Williams filed his notice of appeal in the circuit court on July 20, 2022.

Discussion

Because the judgment in the underlying case did not dispose of ail properly raised claims, it is not a final judgment; therefore, we lack jurisdiction under § 512.020(5), RSMo, and must dismiss Williams’ appeal.

[1–3] As relevant here, § 512.020(5), RSMo provides that "[a]ny party to a suit aggrieved by any judgment of any trial court in any civil cause … may take his or her appeal to a court having appellate jurisdiction from any: … (5) [f]inal judgment in the case …. " " ‘Generally, an appeal may only be taken from a final judgment, which is one that disposes of all claims and all parties involved in a case.’ " Schmidt v. Dart Bein, LC, 644 S.W.3d 579, 581 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (citations omitted). " ‘If the trial court’s judgment was not a final judgment, then the appellate court lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed.’ " Id. at 582. "If the circuit court does not either resolve all the issues as to all parties or expressly designate ‘there is no reason for delay,’ the appeal must be dismissed." Zeller v. Scafe, 455 S.W.3d 503, 505 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (quoting Rule 74.01(b); other citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

[4] These finality principles apply to motions for post-conviction relief. In Green v. State, 494 S.W.3d 525 (Mo. 2016), the Missouri Supreme Court held that "Rule 74.01(b) governs the finality of judgments in civil actions, which includes a Rule 29.15 proceeding," Id. at 531. Green dismissed an appeal for lack of a final judgment where the court did not adjudicate two of the claims in the movant's post-conviction relief motion, Id. at 533. We have similarly dismissed appeals where the circuit court's judgment failed to dispose of all claims Included in motions for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rules 24.035 or 29.15. See, e.g., Huckleberry v. State, 674 S.W.3d 801. 803 (Mo. App. S.D. 2023); Abbott v. State, 654 S.W.3d 377, 380 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022); Rogers v. State, 610 S.W.3d 733, 736 (Mo. App. E.D, 2020); Conn v. State, 564 S.W.3d 386, 387 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018); Harshman v. State, 538 S.W.3d 375, 378 (Mo, App. W.D. 2018); Strickland v. State, 521 S.W.3d 246, 251 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017).

Here, the circuit court did not dispose of all of Williams’ live claims, because it did not address the new claims raised in his timely filed second amended motion.

[5] As the State acknowledges, Williams’ second amended motion was timely filed. Under Rule 24.035(m), if...