State ex rel. Koster v. Heagney
| Decision Date | 30 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. ED103976,ED103976 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. CHRIS KOSTER, Relator, v. THE HONORABLE PHILIP HEAGNEY, Circuit Judge, St. Louis City, and THOMAS L. KLOEPPINGER, Circuit Clerk, St. Louis City, Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Writ of Certiorari
Introduction
This is an original proceeding in certiorari to review the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing George Fisher (Fisher) be released from the custody of the Department of Mental Health (DMH). The habeas court ordered Fisher released after finding his commitment was based on defective pleas of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGRI) in two separate cases, one originating in Jackson County and the other in Audrain County.
The State seeks review of the habeas court's decision by means of a petition for writ of certiorari. The record of the habeas court granting Fisher's petition for writ of habeas corpus in Jackson County is quashed and we refuse to quash the record as to the Audrain County case.
Factual and Procedural Background
Chris Koster (Relator) filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari along with Suggestions in Support and Exhibits, challenging the habeas court's February 2, 2016 Order Granting In Part Petitioner's Petitions For Writ of Habeas Corpus and ordering the release of Fisher from the custody of the DMH. This Court issued the writ of certiorari to the Circuit Clerk of the City of St. Louis directing a certified copy of the record of the proceedings in Fisher's habeas corpus case Fisher v. Laurent Javois, 1522-CC00702, be filed with this Court. The record was filed in this Court.
The record reflects that Fisher pled NGRI in two cases, a 2007 arson case in Jackson County1 and a 2008 possession case in Audrain County.2 The prosecutor and court accepted the pleas in both cases and Fisher is currently in the custody of the DMH in the Fulton State Hospital in Fulton, Missouri. Laurent Javois (Javois), RegionalExecutive Officer of the St. Louis Psychiatric Rehabilitation Center, is the DMH official with custody over Fisher.
On March 30, 2015, Fisher filed a petition for writs of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis in Fisher v. Javois, 1522-CC00702, challenging his own NGRI pleas. On April 9, 2015, Fisher filed his first amended petition for habeas corpus relief. On April 20, 2015, Fisher filed his second amended petition for habeas corpus relief. These petitions challenged Fisher's commitment to the DMH in the Jackson County arson case, State v. Fisher, 0516-CR8303-01, and related PCR case, Fisher v. State, 0716-CV08959; and the Audrain County possession case, State v. Fisher, 05U1-CR00609.
Fisher's habeas corpus petitions alleged the NGRI pleas in the Jackson County Case and the Audrain County Case were both deficient. Fisher's petitions also alleged the DMH was violating his Eighth Amendment rights because it was providing inadequate medical treatment. The habeas court issued a show cause order to Respondent Javois, represented by Assistant Attorney General Gregory Goodwin (Goodwin), who filed a response. On November 12, 2015, the habeas court held a hearing where both Fisher, pro se, and Javois, via Goodwin, presented evidence. Fisher testified in his own behalf and called Dr. James Kelly (Dr. Kelly) to testify on his behalf. Goodwin did not present any witnesses on behalf of Javois or the State. Both sides introduced exhibits and presented argument to the habeas court, who took the Petitions under submission at the end of the hearing.
On February 2, 2016, the habeas court granted in part Fisher's Petition for writs of habeas corpus on the Jackson County Case and the Audrain County Case, and denied his Eighth Amendment claim. This writ of certiorari follows.
Standard of Review
A writ of certiorari requires an inferior court to produce a certified record of a particular case for review for irregularities. State ex rel. Koster v. McCarver, 376 S.W.3d 46, 50 (Mo.App. E.D. 2012). It is available to correct judgments that are in excess or an abuse of jurisdiction, and that are not otherwise reviewable by appeal. Id. A grant of a writ of habeas corpus in a lower court is reviewed by writ of certiorari. Id. When the State files a petition for writ of certiorari, this Court issues the writ as a matter of course and of right. State ex rel. Nixon v. Jaynes, 73 S.W.3d 623, 624 (Mo.banc 2002). However, we limit our review to determining whether the circuit court exceeded the limits of its authority or abused its discretion. Id.
An abuse of discretion occurs only when the trial court's ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration. Id. Certiorari presents only questions of law on the record brought up by the return and does not permit consideration of issues of fact. Id. Questions of sufficiency of the evidence, however, are questions of law and may be considered by this Court in conducting its review. State ex rel. White v. Davis, 174 S.W.3d 543, 547 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005).
Every lawful intendment will be made in favor of the determination and the regularity of the proceedings below. McCarver, 376 S.W.3d at 50. If we determine thecircuit court has erred, then we quash the record of the court that granted the writ. Id. If, however, we determine the circuit court did not err, we decline to quash the record. Id.
Points
In its first point, Relator claims it is entitled to an order quashing the habeas court's entire record, because the habeas court abused its discretion by granting relief on Fisher's claim the NGRI notices were defective, in that Fisher is the one who filed the "defective" notices.
In its second point, Relator contends it is entitled to an order quashing the habeas court's record with respect to the Jackson County case because the habeas court abused its discretion by granting relief on the theory that Fisher failed to sign the notice, in that Missouri law does not require the notice to be signed by the defendant.
In its third point, Relator maintains it is entitled to an order quashing the habeas court's record with respect to the Jackson County case because the habeas court abused its discretion by returning Fisher to pre-trial status, in that Fisher's Jackson County conviction was vacated by the NGRI plea so rendering the NGRI plea a nullity must reinstate that conviction.
In its fourth point, Relator asserts it is entitled to an order quashing the habeas court's record with respect to the Audrain County case because the habeas court abused its discretion when it found no notice was filed, in that the habeas court's determination was not supported by sufficient evidence.
In its fifth point, Relator argues it is entitled to an order quashing the habeas court's entire record because it was an abuse of discretion not to apply the escape rule tothe habeas petition, in that Fisher's nine-month escape is ample justification to deny habeas relief.
Discussion
For purpose of clarity, we discuss the points out of the order in which they were presented in Relator's brief.
Point II
In its second point, Relator contends it is entitled to an order quashing the habeas court's record with respect to the Jackson County case because the habeas court abused its discretion by granting relief on the theory that Fisher failed to sign the notice to pursue a NGRI plea, in that Missouri law does not require the notice to be signed by the defendant.
Section 552.0303 governs NGRI pleas. "A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect such person was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of such person's conduct." Section 552.030.1. Section 552.030.2 provides for the notice to be given when such a plea is pursued:
2. Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility shall not be admissible at trial of the accused unless the accused, at the time of entering such accused's plea to the charge, pleads not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, or unless within ten days after a plea of not guilty, or at such later date as the court may for good cause permit, the accused files a written notice of such accused's purpose to rely on such defense. Such a plea or notice shall not deprive the accused of other defenses. The state may accept a defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, whether raised by plea or written notice, if the accused has no other defense and files a written notice to that effect. The state shall not accept a defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility in the absence of any pretrial evaluation as described in this section or section 552.020. Upon thestate's acceptance of the defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, the court shall proceed to order the commitment of the accused as provided in section 552.040 in cases of persons acquitted on the ground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, and further proceedings shall be had regarding the confinement and release of the accused as provided in section 552.040.
(Emphasis added.)
A plain reading of the applicable statute reveals no requirement the defendant personally sign the notice. The habeas court read this requirement into the statute although there is a complete absence of language suggesting such a specific requirement.
In interpreting statutes, our purpose is to ascertain the intent of the legislature. State ex rel. Riordan v. Dierker, 956 S.W.2d 258, 260 (Mo.banc 1997). In doing so, we look to the language used, giving it its plain and ordinary meaning. Am. Healthcare Mgmt., Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue, 984 S.W.2d 496, 498 (Mo.banc 1999). The courts are without authority to read into a statute a legislative intent which is contrary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial