Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

772 S.W.2d 29

DeBold v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided June 30, 1989

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1989-06-30

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 1991

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The application must be filed within thirty days after the answer is due to be filed if the trial judge is designated at the time the answer is due. If no answer is required to be filed, the application must be filed no later than thirty days after the filing of the civil action. If the trial judge is not designed at the time the answer is due or, if no answer is due, within thirty days after the filing of the civil action, the application must be filed no later than thirty days after the designation of the trial judge and notification to the parties or their attorneys_" (The underlined portion represents the 1990 amendments to the rule.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State ex rel. Ott v. Bonacker

Relies on Toney v. State · Moore v. State · State v. Debold

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-06-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CRIST, Judge.

¶1Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion after an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

¶2Movant was convicted of robbery first degree, assault first degree, and armed criminal action and sentenced to respective prison sentences of thirty years, ten years and fifteen years, each to run consecutively. Movant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. State v. DeBold, 735 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1987).

¶3Movant asserts error in the denial of his timely motion to disqualify the assigned judge. Movant was entitled to one change of judge as a matter of right if his application was timely filed. Rule 51.05(a); Moore v. State, 594 S.W.2d 355, 356[1,2] (Mo.App.1980). Movant filed his pro se Rule 29.15 motion on January 19, 1988. His motion was assigned to Division 7 that same day. Movant was appointed counsel on January 28, 1988, and Judge Corrigan was designated as judge. On March 28, 1988, counsel filed movant’s amended Rule 29.15 motion along with a motion to disqualify Judge Corrigan. On April 28,1988, the motion court overruled movant’s request to disqualify judge and granted mov-ant’s request for an evidentiary hearing.

¶4Movant asserts he filed his application for change of judge within thirty days after the answer was due, and under Rule 51.05(b) a change of judge was mandated.

¶5In a Rule 29.15 proceeding, the State is not required to file an “answer.” Accordingly, an application for change of judge must be filed within thirty days after the designation of the trial judge. Toney v. State, 770 S.W.2d 411 (Mo.App.1989). Movant’s application was not timely filed.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
/772/sw2d/29 · .json · Public domain