Fults v. Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole, WD

• Decision Date: 17 March 1992
• Docket Number: No. WD,WD
• Citation: 826 S.W.2d 103
• Parties: Joseph Edward FULTS, Appellant, v. MISSOURI BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent. 45175.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 103

826 S.W.2d 103

Joseph Edward FULTS, Appellant, v. MISSOURI BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent.

No. WD 45175.

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District.

March 17, 1992.

Joseph Edward Fults, pro se.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., June Striegel Doughty, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, C.J., and SHANGLER and SMART, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

Fults is a prisoner serving sentences totaling forty years for convictions arising from sexual assaults of his fifteen-year old daughter. State v. Fults, 719 S.W.2d 46, 47 (Mo.App.1986).

In this petition for declaratory judgment, Fults sought a determination of whether the Board of Probation and Parole had applied the 1985 parole eligibility guidelines to him in derogation of the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. Fults claimed entitlement to application of the 1982 parole eligibility guidelines which were in effect at the time of the commission of the crimes in 1983. The parole board had informed Fults by letter that the 1985 guidelines would govern his parole eligibility because those procedures were in effect in 1986 when Fults was actually received by the Department of Adult Institutions and began serving his sentence. Alleging serious disadvantages resulting from the retrospective application of the new guidelines, Fults made specific references in his petition to comparable provisions of the 1982 and 1985 guidelines. According to Fults' analysis of the two versions, the 1982 guidelines entitled him to an earlier minimum parole eligibility date than did the 1985 guidelines.

Filing no answer, the parole board, in a one sentence motion, requested dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Fults' first point on appeal is dispositive. He challenges the specificity and the sufficiency of the ruling disposing of his case. Fults insists that the purported judgment fails to demonstrate whether the trial court considered the merits of his claims for declaratory relief or followed proper procedure. Fults further emphasizes that the final ruling lacked any appealable reason for the denial of his petition. The parole board counters with the contention that the ruling should be characterized as a dismissal for failure to state a claim.

The purported judgment consists of the following docket entry:

In absence of the regular Judge of Division II; Petitioner's Petition for Declaratory Judgment is denied; Clerk to so notify parties and Missouri Court of Appeals. TJB/Acting Judge of Division II.

The above docket entry was entered on July 22, 1991 in response to this court's request that Judge Kinder file suggestions in opposition to Fults' July 17, 1991 petition for writ of mandamus. In the writ proceeding, Fults had sought an expeditious decision in his declaratory judgment action, filed in December, 1990. Pending at the time of the trial court's ruling in the declaratory judgment proceeding were the parole board's motion to dismiss, filed ...