ADAMS v. STATE (2026)

Introduction

Mark David Adams, pro se, appeals the motion court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Rule 24.035,¹ without an evidentiary hearing. Adams argues the motion court erred in dismissing his motion, because he presented newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence in the form of recantation affidavits from both the alleged victim and a key witness which he claims demonstrate his actual innocence.

Adams filed his motion for postconviction relief over sixteen years after he was sentenced and delivered to the Missouri Department of Corrections (“DOC”) to serve his sentences. The time deadlines for filing a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 24.035 are mandatory, and there is no recognized exception to these mandatory time deadlines for motions for postconviction relief based on newly discovered and previously unavailable evidence. As such, this Court affirms the motion court's order dismissing the motion for postconviction relief under Rule 24.035 as untimely.

Factual and Procedural Background

In March 2008, a St. Francois County grand jury charged Adams with four counts of first-degree statutory sodomy arising from acts that occurred in 2004 and between 2006 and 2007.

On December 17, 2008, Adams voluntarily and intelligently entered pleas of guilty to counts one and two of the indictment pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). The State dismissed counts three and four in exchange for these pleas.

The plea court accepted Adams’ Alford pleas of guilty to counts one and two and entered judgment in favor of the State. Adams waived a sentencing assessment report, and the plea court sentenced Adams to twelve years imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently. After pronouncing the sentences, the plea court advised Adams of his right to seek postconviction relief under Rule 24.035 and specifically advised Adams of the time deadlines within which to seek such relief.

Adams was delivered to the custody of the DOC to serve his sentences on December 17, 2008, the same day he entered the Alford pleas. Adams did not appeal the judgment of convictions.

On September 11, 2025, more than sixteen years after Adams began serving his sentences, Adams filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. In his motion, Adams alleges that affidavits executed in August 2025 contain newly discovered recantation evidence whereby the alleged victim and a key witness recant statements that led to Adams originally entering his Alford pleas. Adams argues the recantation affidavits prove his actual innocence.

In his motion, Adams specifically denied that he was seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis and did not include a sworn affidavit claiming indigent status. Additionally, Adams stated in his motion that he was not currently in custody and had been released from the DOC at the time of the filing of his motion.

On September 15, 2025, the motion court entered an order appointing the Central Appellate Division for the State Public Defender to represent Adams and notified the court reporter to prepare and file the complete transcript of Adams’ sentencing hearing.

On September 23, 2025, the State filed a motion to dismiss Adams’ motion for postconviction relief on the basis that the motion was not timely filed under Rule 24.035. On the same day, the motion court entered its judgment adopting the facts set forth in the State's motion to dismiss, concluding as a matter of law that the motion for postconviction relief was untimely, and dismissing the motion. This appeal follows.

Standard of Review

This Court's review of a denial of a post-conviction motion under Rule 24.035 is limited to a determination of whether the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k); Roberts v. State, 276 S.W.3d 833, 835 (Mo. banc 2009) (internal citation omitted). The motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after review of the record, the appellate court is left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Roberts, 276 S.W.3d at 835 (internal citation omitted). The movant has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion court clearly erred in its ruling. Id.

Analysis

On appeal, Adams raises two points of error asserting that strict enforcement of the mandatory time deadlines for filing a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 24.035 should yield where credible new evidence demonstrates actual innocence and manifest injustice. Because the time deadlines of Rule 24.035 are constitutional and mandatory, the failure to plead and prove a timely motion constitutes a complete waiver of movant's right to proceed under Rule 24.035. Jones v. State, 2 S.W.3d 825, 826 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). Adams failed to timely file the motion for postconviction relief. Therefore, this Court affirms the motion court's judgment dismissing the motion as untimely filed.

Adams’ Rule 24.035 Motion Was Filed Out of Time

Rule 24.035 provides the exclusive procedure by which a person convicted of a felony on a guilty plea may seek postconviction relief. Rule 24.035(a); Vogl v. State, 437 S.W.3d 218, 226 (Mo. banc 2014). In pertinent part, Rule 24.035(b) provides that if persons seeking relief under the rule do not file a direct appeal from their judgment or sentence following a guilty plea, they must file their motion for postconviction relief within 180 days after they are delivered to the DOC. Wright v. State, 464 S.W.3d 526, 528 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).

In a motion filed pursuant to Rule 24.035, the movant “must allege facts showing a basis for relief to entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing. The movant also must allege facts establishing the motion is timely filed.” Vogl, 437 S.W.3d at 226 (internal citation omitted). “In addition to making said factual allegations, the movant also must prove those allegations.” Id. (emphasis in original).

The burden of alleging and proving that the motion is timely filed can be met by the movant in one of three ways: (1) by filing the original pro se motion timely so that the file stamp on the motion reflects that it is filed within the time limits proscribed by the rule; (2) alleging in the original pro se motion and proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the movant's circumstances fall within a recognized exception to the time limits; or (3) alleging in the amended motion and proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the circuit court misfiled the motion. Vogl, 437 S.W.3d at 226 (internal citation omitted).

Demonstration of timely filing of a motion under Rule 24.035 is a condition precedent to pleading a claim for postconviction relief. Rule 24.035(b); Unnerstall v. State, 53 S.W.3d 589, 591 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001) (internal citation omitted). The issue of timeliness is considered jurisdictional and must be addressed on appeal. Unnerstall, 53 S.W.3d at 590 (internal citations omitted). Moreover, the time deadlines of Rule 24.035 are constitutional and mandatory, and the failure to file a timely motion constitutes a complete waiver of any right to proceed under Rule 24.035 and a complete waiver of any claim that could be raised in a motion filed pursuant to the Rule. Rule 24.035(b); Unnerstall, 53 S.W.3d at 591 (internal citation omitted).

Adams did not file a direct appeal of the judgment or sentence following his Alford pleas. Therefore, Adams must have filed his motion seeking postconviction relief under Rule 24.035 within 180 days of the date he was delivered to the DOC, December 17, 2008. Yet, Adams did not file a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 24.035 until on September 11, 2025, more than sixteen years after his delivery to the DOC. Thus, Adams’ motion for postconviction relief was not timely filed, and his failure to file a timely motion constitutes a complete waiver of any right to proceed under Rule 24.035 and of any claim that could be raised in a motion under Rule 24.035. See Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Mo. banc 1989).

Adams argues that because there is new evidence consisting of recantation affidavits that prove his actual innocence, the mandatory time deadlines in Rule 24.035 should be disregarded. However, it is a well-established principle that “Missouri's postconviction relief rules are not a proper vehicle for the examination of claims of newly discovered evidence.” Wilson v. State, 813 S.W.2d 833, 834 (Mo. banc 1991); see also Ferguson v. State, 325 S.W.3d 400, 406 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). The sole purpose of a postconviction proceeding is to determine whether the proceedings that led to Adams’ convictions were violative of any constitutional requirements or if the judgment of convictions is otherwise void. Wilson, 813 S.W.2d at 834. A proceeding pursuant to Rule 24.035 is not the proper vehicle for relitigating Adams’ guilt or innocence. Id. Newly discovered evidence, if available, may better serve Adams in a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under Rule 91 or in a request for a pardon from the governor under the Missouri Constitution. Id. at 834-35.

In his reply brief, Adams attempts to reframe the issue on appeal as to whether the motion court prematurely terminated the proceeding for postconviction relief before allowing counsel to enter and file an amended motion. However, Adams is bound by his points on appeal and may not change the legal reason for his request for reversal in his reply brief, as such a change “comes too late as arguments omitted from an initial brief may not be supplied by a reply brief.” 4021 Iowa, LLC v. K&A Delmar Property, LLC, 705 S.W.3d 103, 109 (Mo. App. E.D. 2025) (internal citation omitted). “Assignments of error set forth for the first time in the reply brief do not present issues for appellate review.” Wilkinson v. Farmers Holding Companies, 732 S.W.3d 93, 98 (Mo. banc 2026) (internal citation omitted). Under Rule 84.13(a), “allegations of error not briefed or not properly briefed shall not be considered in any civil appeal[.]” Id. It follows that Adams failed to properly preserve the argument he raised for the first time in his reply brief.

Adams did not timely file a motion for postconviction relief under Rule 24.035. As such, the motion court had no choice but to dismiss the motion. See Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 270 (Mo. banc 2012). Adams’ two points on appeal are denied.

Conclusion

This Court affirms the motion court's judgment dismissing Adams’ motion for postconviction relief under Rule 24.035 as untimely.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because Adams’ sentences were imposed prior to January 1, 2018, the postconviction proceeding is governed by the version of Rule 24.035 in effect on the date the motion for postconviction relief was filed or December 31, 2017, whichever is earlier. Rule 24.035(m). Since Adams’ sentences were imposed on December 17, 2008, and his motion was filed on September 11, 2025, the applicable version of Rule 24.035 that governs the postconviction proceeding is the version in effect on December 31, 2017. Rule 24.035(m).All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2017), unless otherwise noted.

Kathleen S. Hamilton, Judge

Lisa P. Page, Presiding Judge and Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, Judge concur.