Garris v. State, SC 92553.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
• Writing for the Court: ZEL M. FISCHER
• Citation: 389 S.W.3d 648
• Parties: Charles R. GARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. SC 92553.,SC 92553.
• Decision Date: 26 February 2013

389 S.W.3d 648

Charles R. GARRIS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. SC 92553.

Supreme Court of Missouri,
En Banc.

Dec. 18, 2012.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 2013.

[389 S.W.3d 649]

Louis R. Horwitz, Lou Horwitz LLC, St. Peters, for Appellant.

Shaun J. Mackelprang, Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

ZEL M. FISCHER, Judge.

Charles Garris appeals the motion court's judgment overruling his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Specifically, Garris alleges that his constitutional rights to due process and to a jury trial were violated when the trial court overruled his pretrial motions challenging the validity of §§ 558.018.5(2)¹ and 558.021.2, RSMo 2000. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over this appeal because the appeal involves a challenge to the validity of a state statute. Mo. Const. art. V, § 3. The motion court did not clearly err in determining Garris waived his constitutional challenges when he pleaded guilty. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed.

Procedural History

The State filed an amended complaint charging Garris with three counts of statutory

[389 S.W.3d 650]

sodomy in the first degree. Garris waived his preliminary hearing. The State filed an information in the trial court repeating the charges filed in the amended felony complaint. Thereafter, the State filed an amended information charging Garris as a predatory sexual offender on all three counts pursuant to § 558.018. The case was set for a jury trial to be held April 26, 2011.

Garris filed a series of motions: 1) alleging a procedural due process violation under § 558.021.2, RSMo 2000, if the hearing to determine whether he would be classified as a “predatory sexual offender” was held before the case proceeded to a jury trial; 2) alleging that § 558.018.5(2) was unconstitutional under the jury trial guarantee of the United States and Missouri constitutions; and 3) seeking to dismiss the predatory sex offender charge under count II of the second amended information. Prior to the hearing to determine if Garris was a predatory sex offender, the trial court overruled Garris' motion alleging a due process violation and took his two other motions under advisement. After the hearing, the trial court determined Garris met the statutory requirements of a predatory sex offender.

On April 22, 2011, a third amended information was filed that charged Garris as a predatory sex offender only on counts I and III, and not count II. ² The trial court overruled the remaining motion challenging the constitutional validity of § 558.018.5(2) under the jury trial guarantee of the United States and Missouri constitutions. Garris entered pleas of guilty to all three counts. A factual basis of Garris' guilt and status as a predatory sex offender was established at the plea hearing. Garris waived a sentencing assessment report. The trial court entered judgment sentencing Garris to life imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. The trial court set the minimum amount of time to be served prior to Garris becoming eligible for parole at 15 years.

Garris, by and through his attorney, timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035.³ He alleged that his constitutional right to a jury trial was denied when the circuit court overruled his motion challenging the trial court's determination of his classification as a predatory sexual offender under § 558.018.5(2) and that his constitutional rights to due process were violated when the trial court overruled his motion challenging the hearing classifying him as a predatory sexual offender under § 558.021.2, RSMo 2000, before the commencement of the scheduled jury trial. The motion court overruled Garris' Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. Garris appeals.

Standard of Review

“This Court's review of the 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.” Cooper v. State, 356 S.W.3d 148, 152 (Mo. banc 2011). “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.” Id. “Movant has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence

[389 S.W.3d 651]

that the motion court clearly erred in its ruling.” Id.

Analysis

Garris argues two points on appeal. First, he alleges that the motion court violated his right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution when it overruled his motion challenging the constitution validity of the predatory sexual offender statute, under §...