State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, No. SC 87564.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtPer Curiam
Citation198 S.W.3d 616
Decision Date08 September 2006
Docket NumberNo. SC 87564.
PartiesSTATE ex rel. Charles MERTENS, Relator, v. The Honorable Thomas J. BROWN III, Respondent.
198 S.W.3d 616
STATE ex rel. Charles MERTENS, Relator,
v.
The Honorable Thomas J. BROWN III, Respondent.
No. SC 87564.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
September 8, 2006.

Page 617

Douglas W. Hennon, Brian K. Stumpe, Jefferson City, for Relator.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Andrew W. Hassell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Maureen M. Monaghan, Office of Prosecuting Atty., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.


Introduction

Charles Mertens pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident. The court sentenced Mertens to the custody of the department of corrections pursuant to section 559.115.1 Within the first 120 days of Merten's sentence, the department of corrections reported that he had successfully completed the institutional program. Without holding a hearing, Respondent denied probation and ordered Mertens to complete his sentence. Section 559.115 requires Respondent to hold a hearing within the first 120 days of an offender's sentence before denying probation to an offender successfully completing the program. Respondent failed to do so. A peremptory writ of mandamus is ordered to issue directing

Page 618

Respondent to release Mertens on probation as provided in section 559.115.

Was Mertens Entitled to Probation?

Once judgment and sentencing occur in a criminal proceeding, the trial court has exhausted its jurisdiction. It can take no further action in that case except when otherwise expressly provided by statute or rule. State ex rel. Simmons v. White, 866 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo. banc 1993).

Section 559.115.3 expressly provides, in pertinent part:

3. The court may recommend placement of an offender in a department of corrections one hundred twenty-day program. Upon the recommendation of the court, the department of corrections shall determine the offender's eligibility for the program, the nature, intensity, and duration of any offender's participation in a program and the availability of space for an offender in any program. When the court recommends and receives placement of an offender in a department of corrections one hundred twenty-day program, the offender shall be released on probation if the department of corrections determines that the offender has successfully completed the program except as follows. Upon successful completion of a treatment program, the board of probation and parole shall advise the sentencing court of an offender's probationary release date thirty days prior to release. The court shall release the offender unless such release constitutes an abuse of discretion. If the court determined that there is an abuse of discretion, the court may order the execution of the offender's sentence only after conducting a hearing on the matter within ninety...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Lau v. Pugh, No. SD 29289.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 1, 2009
    ...diminution in value of Appellant's property as well as the cost to cure the damage which occurred to his property. Healthcare Servs., 198 S.W.3d at 616. Point III is denied.22 299 S.W.3d 756 In his fourth point relied on, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in entering judgment on his t......
  • Lau v. Pugh, No. SD 29289 (Mo. App. 11/4/2009), No. SD 29289.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 4, 2009
    ...diminution in value of Appellant's property as well as the cost to cure the damage which occurred to his property. Healthcare Servs., 198 S.W.3d at 616. Point III is In his fourth point relied on, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in entering judgment on his trespass claim because the......
  • Ewing v. Denney, No. WD 74807.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 27, 2012
    ...for the county in which the person is held in custody. 6. This ruling was likely issued in reliance on State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616, 619 (Mo. banc 2006), where our Missouri Supreme Court held that “one circuit court does not have supervisory authority over another circuit ......
  • State Ex Rel. Dwight K. Scroggins v. the Honorable Daniel F. Kellogg, No. WD 73178.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 8, 2011
    ...by statute or rule.” Simmons v. White, 866 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo. banc 1993) (emphasis added); see also, State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616, 618 (Mo. banc 2006). This principal was reiterated by our court in State ex rel. Scroggins v. Kellogg, 311 S.W.3d 293 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) ( S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Lau v. Pugh, No. SD 29289.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 1, 2009
    ...diminution in value of Appellant's property as well as the cost to cure the damage which occurred to his property. Healthcare Servs., 198 S.W.3d at 616. Point III is denied.22 299 S.W.3d 756 In his fourth point relied on, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in entering judgment on his t......
  • Lau v. Pugh, No. SD 29289 (Mo. App. 11/4/2009), No. SD 29289.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • November 4, 2009
    ...diminution in value of Appellant's property as well as the cost to cure the damage which occurred to his property. Healthcare Servs., 198 S.W.3d at 616. Point III is In his fourth point relied on, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in entering judgment on his trespass claim because the......
  • Ewing v. Denney, No. WD 74807.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • March 27, 2012
    ...for the county in which the person is held in custody. 6. This ruling was likely issued in reliance on State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616, 619 (Mo. banc 2006), where our Missouri Supreme Court held that “one circuit court does not have supervisory authority over another circuit ......
  • State Ex Rel. Dwight K. Scroggins v. the Honorable Daniel F. Kellogg, No. WD 73178.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 8, 2011
    ...by statute or rule.” Simmons v. White, 866 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo. banc 1993) (emphasis added); see also, State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616, 618 (Mo. banc 2006). This principal was reiterated by our court in State ex rel. Scroggins v. Kellogg, 311 S.W.3d 293 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) ( S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT