State ex rel. Cullen v. Cardona
Decision Date | 29 January 2019 |
Docket Number | No. ED 107388,ED 107388 |
Citation | 568 S.W.3d 492 |
Parties | STATE EX REL. John CULLEN, Relator, v. The Honorable Troy A. CARDONA, Judge of the Circuit Court of the County of Jefferson, 23rd Judicial Circuit, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Amy E. Lowe, Travis C. Bargeon, 1010 Market St. Ste. 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101, For Relator.
Michael J. Spillane, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102, Jacob T. Costello, P.O. Box 100, Hillsboro, MO 63050, For Respondent.
John Cullen ("Relator") seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the Honorable Troy A. Cardona ("Respondent") to release Relator from the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections and place him on probation pursuant to § 217.362.1 Relator argues that he should be released on probation because he successfully completed the long-term substance abuse treatment program established by § 217.362. We hold that the evidence upon which Respondent based the denial of Relator’s probation was insufficient to support Respondent’s conclusion that Relator was unfit for probation, and mandamus relief is therefore proper.
Relator also undertook two positions (Conflict Resolution Department Head and Housing Unit One Coordinator) within the long-term treatment program’s therapeutic community. Further, the report included Relator’s home, employment, and counseling plans that he was prepared to execute upon his release. In regards to disciplinary violations, the report indicated that Relator received a conduct violation for disregarding an instruction "to move his chair during tighthouse intervention from the main group to the Strike 1 group" and leaving to use the restroom instead. This was Relator’s sole conduct violation and it was "self-corrected."
On January 29, 2018, Respondent determined that Relator was "not amenable to probation and that it would be an abuse of discretion to release him based upon his conduct violation" cited in the Board’s report. Accordingly, Respondent ordered execution of the 15-year sentence previously imposed. Relator subsequently filed a petition for writ of mandamus with our Court. We issued a preliminary order in mandamus. We dispense with further briefing as permitted by Rule 84.24(i). The preliminary order is made permanent.
The procedural means for challenging the denial of probation is through a writ of mandamus. Prewitt v. State, 191 S.W.3d 709, 711 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). "Mandamus is a discretionary writ that is appropriate when a court has exceeded its jurisdiction or authority, and where no remedy exists through appeal." State ex rel. Kizer v. Mennemeyer , 421 S.W.3d 558, 559 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). "Ordinarily mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the discharge of ministerial functions, but not to control the exercise of discretionary powers." State ex rel. Taylor v. Russell , 449 S.W.3d 380, 381 (Mo. banc 2014). However, if a respondent’s actions are incorrect as a matter of law, then he "has abused any discretion [he] may have had, and mandamus is appropriate." State ex rel. Valentine v. Orr, 366 S.W.3d 534, 538 (Mo. banc 2012). This Court will "defer to the trial court’s factual findings so long as they are supported by competent, substantial evidence, but will review de novo the application of the law to those facts." State ex rel. Winkler v. Goldman , 485 S.W.3d 783, 789 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).
Relator argues that Respondent abused his discretion in refusing to release Relator on probation because Relator successfully completed the long-term treatment program and a single conduct violation has not been found to merit the execution of a sentence.
Section 217.362.2 states that:
[T]he court may sentence a person to the [long-term treatment] program which shall consist of institutional drug or alcohol treatment for a period of at least twelve and no more than twenty-four months, as well as a term of incarceration.... Execution of the offender’s term of incarceration shall be suspended pending completion of said program.
Upon an offender’s successful completion of the long-term treatment program, "the trial court must: (1) allow the offender to be released on probation; or (2) determine that probation is not appropriate and order the execution of the offender’s sentence." State ex rel. Salm v. Mennemeyer , 423 S.W.3d 319, 321 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).
When determining whether probation was appropriate, Respondent was not required to conduct a hearing under the applicable version of § 217.362.3 See id. at 321–22. Nonetheless, Respondent’s determination that probation was not appropriate must be supported by evidence. See id. at 322. For that reason, the issue before this Court is whether there was competent evidence in the record to support Respondent’s conclusion that Relator was unfit for probation. See State ex rel. Dane v. State , 115 S.W.3d 879, 881 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003).
In the present case, the Board’s report noted that "[Relator] ha[d] successfully completed the requirements...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Spicer v. Spicer, ED 106563
-
State ex rel. Hunt v. Seay
...559.115."The procedural means for challenging the denial of probation is through a writ of mandamus." State ex rel. Cullen v. Cardona , 568 S.W.3d 492, 494 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019). One seeking mandamus relief must prove a clear and unequivocal right to the thing claimed. State ex rel. Young v.......
-
State ex rel. Meller v. Beetem
... ... then he 'has abused any discretion [he] may have had, and ... mandamus is appropriate.'" State ex rel. Cullen ... v. Cardona, 568 S.W.3d 492, 494 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) ... (quoting State ex rel. Valentine v. Orr, 366 S.W.3d ... 534, 538 (Mo ... ...
-
State ex rel. Washington v. Crane
...rather than the current version of § 559.115.[5] In making this argument, however, the court overlooks the fact that Hunt also relied on Cullen, which interpreted the current version § 217.362, containing nearly identical language to the current version of § 559.115.3.[6] Both §§ 217.362.3 ......