JOSHUA PROFFER v. STATE OF MISSOURI (2026)

Introduction

Joshua C. Proffer (“Movant”) appeals the motion court's denial of his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief (“PCR”) without an evidentiary hearing.¹ Movant raises six points on appeal asserting the motion court erred in denying him post-conviction relief. In Point Six, Movant argues the motion court plainly erred in denying his amended PCR motion because it did not rule on the timeliness of his pro se PCR motion. This Court finds this issue is dispositive.

Though Movant contends Point Six is not preserved and requests plain error review, this Court finds Movant's point is, in fact, preserved. This Court holds the motion court clearly erred in failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on the timeliness of Movant's pro se PCR motion, as required by Rule 29.15(j). Accordingly, this Court reverses the motion court's judgment and remands the case.

Background

One night in April 2021, Movant, his girlfriend, and Victim got into an altercation with one another, resulting in Victim's death. The State charged Movant with one count of first-degree murder. A jury trial was held in November 2022, and the jury found Movant guilty of second-degree murder. The trial court sentenced Movant to life imprisonment in the Missouri Department of Corrections (“DOC”).

Movant appealed, and this Court affirmed his conviction. See State v. Proffer, 683 S.W.3d 735 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (per curiam). This Court issued the mandate on March 7, 2024, and Movant subsequently filed a pro se PCR motion. The envelope which contained the motion had a stamp indicating it had been mailed from the DOC mailroom on May 29, 2024, seven days before the filing deadline. The pro se PCR motion, however, was not file-stamped by the motion court clerk until June 11, 2024, six days after the deadline. The envelope had a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) tracking number and barcode, but it did not have a USPS postmark, and there is no record of whether its delivery to the motion court occurred on the same day it was file-stamped.

On June 20, 2024, the motion court appointed PCR counsel to represent Movant. PCR counsel untimely filed an amended PCR motion on October 19, 2024. Two days later, PCR counsel filed a motion “To Consider Movant's Amended Motion As Timely Filed Under Sanders v. State.” On February 11, 2025, the motion court granted PCR counsel's motion and determined the amended PCR motion was timely filed.

On November 10, 2025, the motion court denied Movant's amended PCR motion without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court's judgment, however, did not include any findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding the timeliness of Movant's pro se PCR motion.²

This appeal follows.

Discussion

Movant raises six points on appeal. In Point Six, Movant contends the motion court plainly erred in failing to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on the timeliness of his pro se PCR motion, as required by Rule 29.15(j). This Court finds this point is preserved and it is dispositive. Thus, we will not address Movant's remaining points on appeal.

Preservation

As an initial matter, this Court must address whether Point Six is preserved. Movant asserts the issue is not preserved because he did not raise it in a Rule 78.07(c) motion to alter or amend the judgment. Thus, he requests plain error review. The State, however, contends the issue is preserved because a Rule 78.07(c) motion is not required to preserve timeliness issues for appellate review. The question, then, is whether the motion court's failure to address the timeliness of Movant's pro se PCR motion is preserved despite Movant's failure to raise the issue in a Rule 78.07(c) motion. We conclude that it is.

Rule 78.07(c) provides that “allegations of error relating to the form or language of the judgment, including the failure to make statutorily required findings, must be raised in a motion to amend the judgment in order to be preserved for appellate review.” “The purpose of Rule 78.07(c) is to ensure that complaints about the form and language of judgments are brought to the attention of the [motion] court where they can be easily corrected, alleviating needless appeals, reversals, and rehearings.” Mercer v. State, 512 S.W.3d 748, 753 (Mo. banc 2017) (quoting Dunlap v. State, 452 S.W.3d 257, 263 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015)).

Recently, our colleagues in the Western District reviewed the same question presented here—whether Rule 78.07(c) applies to issues of the timeliness of a movant's pro se motion—in Taylor v. State, WD87850, 2026 WL 1073446, *8 (Mo. App. W.D. Apr. 21, 2026). We agree with their conclusion that questions concerning the timeliness of a pro se or amended PCR motion are not subject to the preservation requirements of Rule 78.07(c). See id. As Taylor recognized, this conclusion is consistent with appellate courts’ independent “duty to enforce the mandatory time limits and the resulting complete waiver in the post-conviction rules”—even if the State concedes or fails to raise the issue. Scott v. State, 719 S.W.3d 723, 726 (Mo. banc 2025) (quoting Dorris v. State, 360 S.W.3d 260, 268 (Mo. banc 2012)); see also Taylor, 2026 WL 1073446 at *8. Therefore, Movant was not required to file a Rule 78.07(c) motion to preserve this issue for appellate review.

Analysis

Having concluded the issue in Point Six is preserved for appellate review, this Court now turns to the merits of Movant's claim. Movant contends this Court should remand the case to the motion court for a hearing to determine the timeliness of his pro se PCR motion. Thus, this Court must determine whether the motion court's failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the timeliness of Movant's pro se PCR motion necessitates remand.

Rule 29.15(b) provides where, as here, a movant appeals and his conviction is affirmed, he must file his pro se PCR motion within 90 days of the appellate court's mandate. Price v. State, 422 S.W.3d 292, 296 (Mo. banc 2014). When filing a motion pursuant to Rule 29.15, a movant must: (1) show the file stamp reflects it was filed within the time limits in Rule 29.15; (2) allege in his motion that a recognized exception to the time limits applies; or (3) allege in his amended motion that the motion court misfiled the motion. Dorris, 360 S.W.3d at 267. If the motion court finds a motion is untimely and no exception applies, the motion “must be dismissed, as neither the motion court nor this Court has any authority to address the merits of [movant's] post-conviction claims.” Miller v. State, 386 S.W.3d 225, 227 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (quoting Graves v. State, 372 S.W.3d 546, 548 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012)).

In disposing of a PCR motion, Rule 29.15(j) requires the motion court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented, including the timeliness of the movant's pro se motion, regardless of whether a hearing is held. “A motion court's failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 29.15(j) is error and generally necessitates that the case be remanded with a directive to make the required findings.” Smith v. State, 343 S.W.3d 766, 768 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (quoting Bode v. State, 316 S.W.3d 406, 411 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010)).

In the present case, both parties request this Court remand the case. We agree. The record indicates this Court issued the mandate in Movant's direct appeal on March 7, 2024. Therefore, Movant's pro se PCR motion was due on or before June 5, 2024. But the motion was file-stamped on June 11, 2024, several days after the filing deadline. As required, see Dorris, 360 S.W.3d at 267, Movant alleged in his amended PCR motion that he mailed his pro se motion on May 29, 2024, as reflected by the DOC mailroom stamp, and argued it was therefore timely filed. Alternatively, he alleged a recognized exception to Rule 29.15's time limits applied. Specifically, Movant claimed he did all he reasonably could to ensure a timely filing, and the “thirteen[-]day delay between the date the letter was mailed from [the DOC] to when it was file-stamped was caused by the active interference of either U.S.P.S. or the Cape Girardeau County Circuit Court.”

The motion court did not hold a hearing on the timeliness of Movant's pro se motion or enter any findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue. “The fact that no such review occurred and no findings of fact or conclusions of law were issued leaves ‘no basis for meaningful appellate review.’ ” Martin v. State, 682 S.W.3d 111, 117–18 (Mo. App. S.D. 2024) (quoting Morse v. State, 620 S.W.3d 117, 119 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021)). Accordingly, remand is required. See id. at 118 (remanding case because the motion court failed to hold a hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the timeliness of movant's pro se PCR motion).

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the motion court's judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded. On remand, the motion court shall hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Movant's pro se PCR motion was timely filed and proceed accordingly, issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law if and when required by Rule 29.15.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2025).

2.   Even though we do not address the merits of Points One through Five, this Court notes the motion court only addressed four of the five ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims included in Movant's amended PCR motion.

Michael S. Wright, Judge

Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Presiding Judge and Robert M. Clayton III, Judge concur.