State ex rel. Patterson v. Holden
| Citation | 592 S.W.3d 1 |
| Decision Date | 17 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 35998,SD 35998 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri EX REL. Dan PATTERSON, Greene County Prosecuting Attorney, Relator, v. The Honorable Calvin HOLDEN, Thirty-First Judicial Circuit, Greene County, Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Relator’s Attorney: Dan Patterson, Prosecuting Attorney, of Springfield, Missouri.
Respondent’s Attorneys: Erica L. Mynarich, of Springfield, Missouri and Jonathan T. Sternberg, of Kansas City, Missouri.
Dan Patterson, Greene County Prosecutor ("Relator"), filed a "Petition for Writ of Prohibition" asking this Court to direct The Honorable Calvin Holden ("Respondent") to cease ordering defendants placed in his "Domestic Abuse Court" ("DAC") as a special condition of probation, to cease operation of the DAC, and to cease conducting "Domestic Abuse Court Team" "staffings" in cases before the DAC. We granted a preliminary writ of prohibition, and now make that writ permanent.
Relator asserts that the bases for this writ of prohibition center on Respondent’s unauthorized creation and operation of a treatment court division—Respondent’s DAC—not established by the 31st Judicial Circuit Court (the "31st Judicial Circuit"), as required by chapter 478, and under circumstances in which the 31st Judicial Circuit had designated other judges (and not Respondent) to preside over its treatment court divisions.
In a prohibition proceeding, "[t]he reviewing court is limited to the record made in the court below[,]"1 and to admissions from respondent’s answer to relator’s petition.2 We recite such material as made pertinent by this standard.
Prior to December 18, 2018, the 31st Judicial Circuit established several treatment court divisions, generally referred to as "drug court" or "treatment court," pursuant to chapter 478. Local Rule 1.3 (Oct. 2017),3 provided in relevant part: "The Court en banc shall designate the division or divisions of the Circuit Court, or Associate Circuit Court, that shall be the Drug Court Division(s)." Local Rule 77 (Oct. 2017), further provided:
Effective December 18, 2018, the Missouri legislature amended sections 478.001 to 478.009, replacing the heading "drug courts" with "adult treatment courts," brought mental health courts handling co-occurring disorders under the adult treatment court umbrella, and placed adult treatment courts, DWI courts, family treatment courts, juvenile treatment courts, and veterans courts within treatment court divisions. In April 2019, the 31st Judicial Circuit amended its local rules consistent with the changes to sections 478.001 to 478.009. Local Rule 1.3 (April 2019) now provides, in relevant part: "The Court en banc shall designate the division or divisions of Treatment Court." Likewise, Local Rule 77 was amended consistent with the changes to sections 478.001 to 478.009, RSMo Cum.Supp. 2019:
(Emphasis added).
Respondent required defendants he placed in DAC to appear before him as part of those defendants' special conditions of probation. Respondent created a so-called "Thirty-First Judicial Circuit Domestic Abuse Court Program, Policy and Procedure" (the "DAC Manual") that describes "staffings"—i.e. , "meetings just prior to court, where the team discusses each participant who will appear in court." The DAC Manual provides that "status hearings are regularly scheduled progress hearing[s] where the participants appear in front of the Judge to go over everything that was discussed in the staffing prior to court." DAC "decisions are made by a team consensus[.]"
In a recent case, Respondent sentenced a defendant convicted of DWI to be placed in the 31st Judicial Circuit’s DWI court and Respondent’s DAC, but Respondent’s sentence directed only that defendant appear before Respondent in his DAC. This confused and duplicative allocation of judicial efforts ultimately led the DWI court judge to make the following docket entry:
Deft will not be accepted in TC(4) nor supervised by TC(4) Judge because ‘duel TC4/DAC’ referenced in Judge Holden’s docket entry of 01/24/2019 does not exist. Deft was never admitted to TC(4) because he never appeared for TC(4). TC case number to be administratively closed. Copy of this entry to Judge Holden and Presiding Judge Cordonnier.
On February 11, 2019, Relator directed correspondence to The Honorable Michael Cordonnier ("Judge Cordonnier"), Presiding Judge of the Circuit Court, requesting, in part, that the "Court en banc" address the issue of Judge Holden’s sentencing individuals to his DAC "as if it is a treatment court," and other issues related thereto. Relator further requested that Judge Cordonnier, in his:
administrative capacity, or that the Court en banc, direct Division V to act in accordance with Missouri Law, Missouri Supreme Court Rules, and Greene County Circuit Court Local Rules, to cease referring to the ‘DAC’ as a treatment court or ‘court’ and to cease the conduct of out-of-court ‘staffings’ in which factual material outside of the record is considered by the Court.
On March 7, 2019, Relator also filed a petition for writ of prohibition and suggestions in support in the Circuit Court in case number 1931-CC00313, pursuant to Rule 84.22(a).4 Relator’s petition was denied on March 8, 2019.
On March 11, 2019, Relator filed with this Court a "Writ Summary," "Petition for Writ of Prohibition," suggestions in support, and exhibits.
On March 18, 2019, Respondent was granted an extension of time until March 26, 2019, to file a...
To continue reading
Request your trial