Hall v. Missouri Board of Parole

• Decision Date: 07 December 1999
• Citation: 10 S.W.3d 540
• Parties: (Mo.App. W.D. 1999) Arizona Hall, Appellant, v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, et al., Respondents. WD56767
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

10 S.W.3d 540 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999)

Arizona Hall, Appellant, v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, et al., Respondents.

WD56767

Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

12/07/99

Appeal From: Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Hon. Kenneth R. Lewis

Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se

Counsel for Respondent: Stacy L. Anderson

Opinion Summary: Arizona Hall appeals summary judgment for the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, the Division of Adult Institutions, and the Department of Corrections, on his declaratory judgment action against them seeking a declaration that, pursuant to section 558.011, he should have been conditionally released from prison after serving three years of his fifteen-year prison sentence.

Division III holds: Hall's points relied on fail to comply with the requirements of Rule 84.04(d). While all the points identify the trial court's ruling that the he challenges, they fail to state concisely the legal reasons for his claim of reversible error and fail to explain, in summary fashion, why any legal reason supports his claim that the trial court erred in sustaining the motion for summary judgment. Furthermore, his points are not substantially in the form set out in the rule for a proper point relied on. In addition to these defects, his points are so nebulous that it is impossible to identify which of several possible claims he is attempting to raise in each point. Because his points preserve nothing for appellate review, this Court declines to address them.

Even if this Court were to review the points relied on, his claim on appeal is moot.

Edwin H. Smith, Judge

Arizona Hall appeals the summary judgment of the circuit court for the respondents, the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole (the Board), the Division of Adult Institutions (the Division), and the Department of Corrections (the DOC), on his declaratory judgment action against them seeking a declaration that, pursuant to section 558.011,¹ he should have been conditionally released from prison on July 29, 1990, after serving only three years of his fifteen-year prison sentence.

The appellant raises four points on appeal, all of which relate to the trial court's interpretation of section 558.011 and its application of the statute's provisions to him. In Points I and III, he generally claims that the trial court erroneously declared and applied the law as found in section 558.011 by interpreting the statute's language to mean that an inmate, who is serving a fifteen-year prison sentence, is required to serve twelve years in prison before being eligible for conditional release, depriving him of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. In Points II and IV, he generally claims that the trial court erroneously declared and applied the law by applying section 558.011, RSMo 1994, as opposed to the 1986 version, thereby violating the prohibition against ex post facto laws as pronounced in the Missouri and United States Constitutions.

We affirm.

Facts

On September 11, 1987, the appellant entered an Alford plea of guilty in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, before the Honorable Kenneth M. Romines to one count of first-degree assault, section 565.050, and one count of armed criminal action, section 571.015. On November 23, 1987, the court sentenced him to concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment in the DOC. The appellant was delivered to the DOC on November 25, 1987. The Division, after giving the appellant credit for 118 days of time served, calculated the start date of his sentence as July 30, 1987, the date of his conditional release from prison to be July 29, 1999, and his maximum release date to be July 29, 2002.

On February 8, 1994, the Board, pursuant to section 558.011.5, extended the date of the appellant's conditional release to the maximum date of his entire sentence of imprisonment for a violation of the Board's institutional rules regarding assault.

On July 20, 1998, the appellant filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the Circuit Court of DeKalb County, Missouri, seeking a declaration that the respondents had miscalculated the date of his conditional release from prison and were wrongfully treating him as a class X offender under section 558.019, RSMo 1986 (effective Jan. 1, 1987), and, thus, subjecting him to a minimum prison term. On October 19, 1998, the appellant filed his first-amended petition, generally making the same allegations as in his original petition and also seeking a declaration that the respondents were applying section 558.011, RSMo 1994, to him, thereby subjecting him to an ex post facto law in violation of the Missouri and United States Constitutions.

On October 22, 1998, the respondents filed their answer and motion for summary judgment. On October 28, 1998, the trial court granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in their favor. Sometime thereafter, the appellant filed a motion with this court seeking leave to file a notice of appeal out of time, which was sustained on February 1, 1999. The appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 25, 1999.

Appellant's Points Relied On

Because we must determine our jurisdiction, sua sponte, Spectrum Cleaning Servs., Inc. v. Blalack, 990 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Mo. App. 1999); Clay County by County Comm'n v. Harley & Susie Bogue, Inc., 988 S.W.2d 102, 108 (Mo. App. 1999), we initially address whether the appellant's facially deficient points relied on sufficiently comply with Rule 84.04(d),² which sets forth the requirements for valid points relied on, to invoke our jurisdiction. The current version of Rule 84.04(d) took effect on January 1, 1999. Because the appellant's brief was filed on June 17, 1999, his points relied on must comply with the current requirements of Rule 84.04(d). Wright v. Wright, 990 S.W.2d 703, 708 (Mo. App. 1999).

The current version of Rule 84.04(d) provides:

(d) Points Relied On.

(1) Where the appellate court reviews the decision of a trial court, each point shall:

(A) identify the trial court ruling or action that the appellant challenges;

(B) state concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and

(C) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error.

The point shall be in substantially the following form: "The trial court erred in [identify the challenged ruling or action], because [state the legal reasons for the claim of reversible error], in that [explain why the legal reasons, in the context of the case, support the claim of reversible error]."

. . .

(4) Abstract statements of law, standing alone, do not comply with this rule. Any reference to the record shall be limited to the ultimate facts necessary to inform the appellate court and the other parties of the issues. Detailed evidentiary facts shall not be included.

Thus, the rule requires that each point relied on: (1) identify the trial court's ruling or action that the appellant is challenging on appeal; (2) state the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error; and (3) explain in summary fashion why, in the context of the case, those legal reasons support the claim of reversible error. Ford v. Ford, 990 S.W.2d 698, 702 (Mo. App. 1999). "The function of this rule is to give notice to the opposing party of the precise matters which must be contended with and to inform the court of the issues presented for review." Wilkerson v. Prelutsky, 943 S.W.2d 643, 647 (Mo. banc 1997) (citing Thummel v. King, 570 S.W.2d 679, 686 (Mo. banc 1978)); Nichols v. Mama Stuffeati's, 965 S.W.2d 171, 173 n.1 (Mo. App. 1997). Rule 84.04(d) "sets forth a form for a point relied on that satisfies the [rule's] requirements." Wright, 990 S.W.2d at 708.

The appellant's points relied on read:

I.

The trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment in a declaratory judgment case on appellant's claim that under Section 558.011, RSMo 1986 the conditional release term comes before the prison term in that appellees were not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law and the trial court incorrectly construed Section 558.011, RSMo thereby violating appellant's right to procedural and substantive due process of law, equal protection and his right to be free from retrospective application of the laws as defined under Article I, Section 2, 10, and 13 of Missouri Constitution and Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constituion [sic] and the equal protection and due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

II.

The trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment in a declaratory judgment case without analysis on appellant's claim that appellees improper retrospective and retroactive application of Section 558.011, RSMo 1994 denied appellant his right to the early release program under Section 217.430, RSMo 1986, violated the equal protection, and expost [sic] facto clause under Article I, Section 10 and 13, of Missouri Constitution and Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution and the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

III.

The trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for summary judgment in a declaratory judgment case on appellant's claim that under Section 558.011, RSMo 1986, the conditional release statute created a protected liberty interest of a statutory right that the prison term is on the end of the term of imprisonment and a mandatory release protected by the due process clause appellee were not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law and the trial court incorrectly construed 558.011, RSMo thereby violating appellant's right to life and liberty without due process of law as defined under the due process...