Creighton v. State

Summary

The Missouri Supreme Court held that a motion court’s notification to the public defender of a pro se Rule 29.15 motion was not an appointment of counsel triggering the amended-motion deadlines. The court upheld denial of the ineffective-assistance claim concerning alleged juror nondisclosure but held that the movant’s pro se claims were improperly denied as illegible. The judgment was reversed in part and remanded for consideration of those claims, and affirmed in all other respects.

Holdings

1. A motion court's memorandum notifying the public defender that an indigent movant filed a pro se post-conviction motion is not an appointment of counsel when the memorandum does not appoint counsel and the surrounding circumstances show no intent to make an appointment.
2. The motion court did not clearly err in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing on the claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a mistrial or removal of a juror for intentional nondisclosure.
3. The motion court clearly erred by denying Creighton's pro se post-conviction claims on the ground that they were illegible; the case must be remanded for consideration of those claims on their merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the motion court's memorandum notifying the public defender of Creighton's pro se Rule 29.15 filing constituted an appointment of counsel that triggered the amended-motion filing deadline.
2. Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek a mistrial or removal of a juror for intentional nondisclosure.
3. Whether the motion court clearly erred by denying Creighton's pro se post-conviction claims on the ground that they were illegible.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded