Jackson v. Members of Mo. Bd. of Probation, SC 90113.
Decision Date | 12 January 2010 |
Docket Number | No. SC 90113.,SC 90113. |
Citation | 301 S.W.3d 71 |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Parties | Arbary JACKSON, Appellant, v. MEMBERS OF the MISSOURI BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE, Respondents. |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Jon Edward Beetem, Judge.
Arbary Jackson, St. Louis, pro se.
Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Stephen D. Hawke, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Arbary Jackson began serving a prison sentence in 1977. He was released on parole in 2001. Some years after being released on parole, Jackson was required to pay a fee authorized in 2005 by section 217.690, RSMo Supp. 2008.1 Although the fee did not apply to the time Jackson already had spent on parole, he argues that applying the law to him for future services provided violates Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 13 as a law retrospective in its operation. The trial court correctly determined there was no violation.
"A statute is not retrospective or retroactive because it relates to prior facts or transactions but does not change their legal effect, or because some of the requisites for its action are drawn from a time antecedent to its passage, or because it fixes the status of an entity for the purpose of its operation." Jerry-Russell Bliss v. Hazardous Waste, 702 S.W.2d 77, 81 (Mo. banc 1985). The new fee for parole services does not change the effect of Jackson's conviction or his prior parole status. It does not create a new obligation, impose a new duty, or attach a new disability in respect to past transactions or considerations. See id. It is a fee for current and future services rendered.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.
1. Section 217.690.3 states: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Miller
... ... Debt,” or for certain fees the MDOC and the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole (the “Board”) had assessed against him before he filed ... 9 In Jackson v. Members of the Missouri Board of Probation & Parole, 10 the Missouri ... ...
- State v. Young
- F.R. v. St. Charles County Sheriff's Dept.
- Harden v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
-
§ 11.01 Transmutation by Title
...Harris, 59 So.3d 731 (Ala. App. 2010).[74] Marriage of Flower, 223 Ariz. 531, 225 P.3d 588 (Ariz. App. 2010). See also, Skaggs v. Skaggs, 301 S.W.3d 71 (Mo. App. 2009).[75] Wiener v. Wiener, 57 A.D.3d 241, 868 N.Y.S.2d 197 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008).[76] Andrews v. Andrews, 289 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. A......