State ex rel. Jonas v. Minor

• Decision Date: 30 June 2020
• Docket Number: No. SC 97674,SC 97674
• Citation: 602 S.W.3d 189
• Parties: STATE EX REL. Travis JONAS, Petitioner, v. Dean MINOR, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

602 S.W.3d 189

STATE EX REL. Travis JONAS, Petitioner,

v.Dean MINOR, Respondent.

No. SC 97674

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued June 30, 2020

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN HABEAS CORPUS

Mary R. Russell, Judge Travis Jonas seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground his due process rights were violated as a result of the circuit court revoking his probation and ordering his sentence executed despite having sufficient earned compliance credits (ECCs) and having paid restitution in full. He asserts he should have been discharged from probation. Because the combination of Jonas’ time served on probation and accrued ECCs would have entitled him to discharge under section 217.703.7,¹ the circuit court no longer had authority to revoke his probation after he paid restitution. He should have been discharged before the State attempted to revoke probation and the circuit court subsequently suspended and revoked his probation. Habeas relief granted; Jonas is to be discharged from the Missouri Department of Corrections’ custody.

Background

On July 13, 2012, Jonas pleaded guilty to the class C felony of identity theft. The circuit court sentenced Jonas to seven years in the Missouri Department of Corrections, suspended the execution of that sentence, and placed him on a five-year term of probation. As part of the special conditions of the probation, Jonas was subject to obtaining the REACT assessment,² random drug testing, substance abuse evaluation, including any treatment as directed by the division of probation and parole, and payment of the full amount of restitution.

Jonas’ probation was punctuated by field violation reports filed by his probation officer and motions to suspend and revoke his probation filed by the State. The State moved to suspend and revoke probation on May 22, 2013, for failure to pay restitution. The State withdrew this motion on September 12, 2013. On that date, the circuit court imposed an additional condition that Jonas pay a specific amount toward the restitution on a monthly basis. The docket reflects that the hearing regarding the motion was cancelled.

On November 20, 2013, Jonas’ probation officer filed a field violation report. The field violation report detailed that Jonas violated his probation due to failure to pay the monthly court-ordered restitution imposed in September, and it recommended a continuance of probation with a plan to pay the restitution. The field violation report concluded Jonas had an optimal discharge date of April 19, 2015, at the latest.³ The docket reflects no hearing regarding this field violation report.

On June 10, 2015, Jonas’ probation officer filed a case summary report. The report specified Jonas had an outstanding restitution balance and was paying it on a monthly basis. The case summary report included sentence information for the identity theft sentence as well as two other suspended impositions of sentence under a separate docket number. On the identity theft case, the report noted, "JONAS WILL REMAIN UNDER SUPERVISION ON THE FOLLOWING CASE: 1111-CR0374[1]-01[.]"

On June 11, 2015, the State filed a motion to suspend and revoke Jonas’ probation for failure to pay the court-ordered restitution. The status/restitution hearing was repeatedly continued. Jonas tendered his last payment toward restitution on November 2, 2015. The division of probation and parole received proof of the payment on November 4, 2015. On November 5, 2015, the State withdrew the motion to suspend and revoke probation.

Jonas’ probation officer filed a field violation report at the end of January 2016. The field violation report noted Jonas had violated his probation because of a failure to complete REACT and due to an arrest for felony identity theft, passing a bad check, and forgery. The arrest occurred in mid-December 2015. The field violation report concluded Jonas had fully paid his restitution and had an earned discharge date of March 15, 2016. A case summary report was filed the same day. The case summary report noted the same earned and optimal discharge date of March 15, 2016. It recommended that – due to the arrest for felony identity theft, passing a bad check, and forgery, and because Jonas was in violation for failure to complete REACT – his probation be suspended and a hearing be held.

Acting on these reports, on February 1, 2016, the State filed a motion to suspend and revoke Jonas’ probation. His probation was suspended February 9, 2016, and remained suspended until May 11, 2017, when it was revoked and his seven-year sentence was executed. The circuit court found Jonas’ failure to obtain the REACT assessment and conduct leading to his arrest violated the conditions of his probation. Jonas remains incarcerated in the Moberly Correctional Center, where Dean Minor is the warden.

Following his probation revocation, Jonas filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion, and court-appointed counsel filed an amended motion alleging the circuit court lacked authority to revoke Jonas’ probation because Jonas had acquired enough ECCs to be discharged before the February 2016 suspension of probation. The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing at which the State presented the testimony of a probation and parole officer who had reviewed Jonas’ file. Based on the field violation reports and motions to revoke, the probation and parole officer stated Jonas’ discharge date through operation of ECCs was May 24, 2015, but Jonas had not paid his restitution by that date.⁴ The circuit court ultimately overruled Jonas’ Rule 24.035 motion, concluding section 217.703.8 did not allow the court to calculate the proper award of ECCs in a motion for postconviction relief.

Jonas then sought and was denied habeas relief in the circuit court and the court of appeals. Jonas now seeks a writ of habeas corpus from this Court.

Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

This Court has jurisdiction to issue original remedial writs. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 4.1. "Any person restrained of liberty within this state may petition for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such restraint." Rule 91.01(b); see also section 532.010, RSMo 2016 ("Every person committed, detained, confined or restrained of his liberty, within this state, for any criminal or supposed criminal matter, or under any pretense whatsoever ... may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus as herein provided, to inquire into the cause of such confinement or restraint."). A habeas corpus proceeding may be used to challenge a probation revocation. State ex rel. Nixon v. Jaynes , 73 S.W.3d 623, 624 (Mo. banc 2002).

Analysis

Jonas argues he is entitled to habeas relief on the ground the circuit court lacked authority to revoke his probation. He alleges proper application of the statute governing ECCs, section 217.703, would have required his discharge before the circuit court suspended his probation in February 2016.

I. Jonas Can Challenge the Calculation of His Discharge Date in Habeas Corpus

The State argues Jonas cannot challenge the calculation of his discharge date in habeas corpus because section 217.703.8 prohibits challenges to the award or recession of ECCs in any motion for postconviction relief. This is incorrect, as section 217.703.8 provides: "The award or rescission of any credits earned under this section shall not be subject to appeal or any motion for postconviction relief. " (Emphasis added). The State's interpretation that "any motion for postconviction relief" includes a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is without authority. The court of appeals has held this language bars review of ECCs in proceedings under Rules 24.035 and 29.15, but the court of appeals has held review of claims regarding ECCs is permissible in a habeas corpus proceeding. State ex rel. Schmitt v. Hayes , 583 S.W.3d 73, 83-84 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) ; State ex rel. Hawley v. Chapman , 567 S.W.3d 197, 205-06 (Mo. App. W.D. 2018).⁵ This Court agrees section 217.703.8 precludes review of ECCs in postconviction proceedings under Rules 24.035 and 29.15.

The statute, however, does not prevent a challenge in habeas corpus to the award or rescission of credits earned. The State contends habeas corpus is part of Missouri's unitary postconviction process because Rules 24.035 and 29.15, which provide the "exclusive procedure" for those seeking the relief for the claims enumerated in those rules, are carve-outs of the authority of habeas corpus. The State posits, when the legislature prohibited challenges to the calculation of ECCs in "any motion for postconviction relief," the prohibition must necessarily have included habeas corpus. This argument fails to recognize the distinction between Rules 24.035 and 29.15 and habeas corpus.

A claim that a person's detention violates the constitution or laws of the state or federal government may require a writ of habeas corpus to be issued. State ex rel. Nixon v. Jaynes , 63 S.W.3d 210, 214 (Mo. banc 2001).⁶ When that claim follows a conviction, relief through a motion under Rules 24.035 and 29.15 is possible. Id. Proceedings pursuant to Rules 24.035 and 29.15 "compel a defendant to raise claims that, before the enactment of these postconviction rules, might have been raised in a petition for habeas corpus relief." Id. In this sense, "[p]ost-conviction remedies [i.e., relief pursuant to Rules 24.035 and 29.15 ] are designed to provide a ‘single, unitary, post-conviction remedy, to be used in place of other remedies,’ including the writ of habeas corpus. " Id. (quoting Wiglesworth v. Wyrick , 531 S.W.2d 713, 719 (Mo. banc 1976) ). A proceeding in which a person seeks a writ of habeas corpus is distinct from a proceeding in which a person seeks postconviction relief. The phrase "any motion for postconviction relief" in section 217.703.8 does not encompass habeas corpus.⁷ Section 217.703.8 does not prohibit a challenge to the calculation of ECCs in habeas corpus.

II. Jonas Accrued Sufficient ECCs for Early Discharge, Pending Fulfillment of...