Dorsey v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 85018.,SC 85018. |
| Citation | 115 S.W.3d 842 |
| Parties | Tommy R. DORSEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Irene C. Karns, Office of State Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Andrea M. Follett, Shaun J. Mackelprang, John M. Morris, Asst. Atty's. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.
Tommy Dorsey pled guilty to driving while intoxicated, section 577.010, RSMo 20001, and driving while revoked, section 302.321. Driving while revoked is usually a class A misdemeanor. However, the last sentence of section 302.321.2 provides that driving while revoked is a class D felony on "a fourth or subsequent conviction for any other offense." Dorsey pled guilty to a class D felony for driving while revoked because the state used Dorsey's prior felony convictions for burglary, arson, assault, and receiving stolen property to enhance the offense. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of five years of imprisonment for each offense, with those terms to be served concurrently with a sentence for assault existing at the time of the plea.
Dorsey filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 24.035. The motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. Dorsey appeals, asserting two points of error. The judgment is affirmed.
Dorsey claims that the language in section 302.321 providing that driving while revoked is a class D felony on "a fourth or subsequent conviction for any other offense" applies only to prior revocations, suspensions or cancellations of a driver's license.2 If the statute is interpreted literally as allowing enhancement for "any other offense," Dorsey argues that driving while revoked could be enhanced to a felony based upon offenses not related to driving, minor offenses, or uncounseled convictions. He maintains that this interpretation renders the statute void for vagueness because it does not provide sufficient guidance for when the enhancement provision should apply and, thus, allows for arbitrary application.
"Where the language of a statute is clear, courts must give effect to the language as written." Kearney Special Road Dist. v. County of Clay, 863 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Mo. banc 1993). Courts do not have the authority to read into a statute a legislative intent that is contrary to its plain and ordinary meaning. State v. Rowe, 63 S.W.3d 647, 650 (Mo. banc 2002). The last sentence of section 302.321.2 states clearly that the offense of driving while revoked is a class D felony if the state proves four convictions "for any other offense." The state produced evidence that Dorsey had four prior felony convictions. Therefore, the trial court correctly applied section 302.321.2 and enhanced Dorsey's driving while revoked conviction to a class D felony.
The trial court's interpretation of the statute does not render it vague. When a statute is challenged as vague, "it is not necessary to determine if a situation could be imagined in which the language used might be vague or confusing." Rather, the language is to be evaluated by "applying it to the facts at hand." State v. Young, 695 S.W.2d 882, 883-84 (Mo. banc 1985); State v. Mahan, 971 S.W.2d 307, 312 (Mo. banc 1998). At the very least, the "any offense" language of section 302.321.2 includes prior felony convictions. Under the facts at hand, the state used four of Dorsey's prior felony convictions to enhance the offense. There was no arbitrary application rendering the statute void for vagueness.
Dorsey's next claim is that trial counsel was ineffective by leading him to believe that the plea agreement included credit for time served on an unrelated assault conviction while the instant case was pending. The motion court denied Dorsey's claim without an evidentiary hearing.
A motion court is not required to grant an evidentiary hearing on a claim for post-conviction relief unless: (1) the movant pleads facts that if true would warrant relief; and, (2) the facts alleged are not refuted by the record; and, (3) the matter complained of resulted in prejudice to the movant. Peiffer v. State, 88 S.W.3d 439, 445 (Mo. banc 2002). The standard of review of the motion court's denial of relief is limited to a determination of whether the court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k).
Following a guilty plea, the ineffectiveness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parsons v. State
...the mistake is based upon a positive representation upon which the movant is entitled to rely. Id. at 866-867 (citing Dorsey v. State , 115 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Mo.banc 2003) ).574 S.W.3d 818 It is no surprise that the motion court has recognized and the State has conceded that Parsons’s counse......
-
Rupert v. State
... ... Standard of Review ... This Court's review of a motion court's denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief 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); Dorsey v. State, 115 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Mo. banc 2003); Flores v. State, 186 S.W.3d 398, 399 (Mo. App. E.D.2006). A motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after a full review of the record, this Court is left with a definite and firm impression ... 250 S.W.3d 446 ... that a ... ...
-
Hefley v. State
...the mistake is reasonable and the mistake is based upon a positive representation upon which the movant is entitled to rely." Dorsey v. State , 115 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Mo. banc 2003). Hefley was statutorily ineligible to enter the LTDP. Plea counsel directly advised him otherwise. The sentenci......
-
O'Neal v. State
... ... This Court's review of a motion court's denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief 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); Dorsey v. State, 115 S.W.3d 842, 845 (Mo. banc 2003); Flores v. State, 186 S.W.3d 398, 399 (Mo. App. E.D.2006). A motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous only if, after a full review of the record, this Court is left with a definite and firm impression that a mistake has been ... ...