Missouri Court of Appeals, 2015

Waring v. State

Waring v. State
Missouri Court of Appeals · Decided April 7, 2015 · Bates, Francis, Scott
466 S.W.3d 570; 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 380; 2015 WL 1548957 (South Western Reporter, Third Series)

Waring v. State

Opinion of the Court

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, *571who 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.