State ex rel. Royal v. Norman
| Citation | 479 S.W.3d 186 |
| Decision Date | 19 January 2016 |
| Docket Number | WD 79246 |
| Parties | State ex rel. Lonnie R. Royal, Petitioner, v. Jeff Norman, Warden Boonville Correctional Center, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Stephen J. Harris, Columbia, MO, for Petitioner.
Caroline M. Coulter, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent.
Before Writ Division: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Thomas H. Newton, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge.
Lonnie R. Royal ("Royal") filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") alleging that he is being confined in the Boonville Correctional Center by Jeff Norman, the Warden of Boonville Correctional Center ("Respondent") in restraint of his liberty because he was defectively sentenced for a felony when he only committed a misdemeanor. The Respondent concedes the merit of Royal's Petition. We issue our writ of habeas corpus.
Royal was charged on July 31, 2007 with domestic assault in the third degree, a misdemeanor, in Texas County, Case Number 07X1–CR00527 ("Misdemeanor Case"). On November 7, 2007, Royal entered a guilty plea to this charge and was sentenced to six months in jail.
On January 23, 2008, Royal was charged in Texas County, Case Number 07X1–CR00577–011 with the class C felony of tampering with a victim in violation of section 575.2702 ("Felony Tampering Case"). Section 575.270.3 provides that:
Tampering with a witness in a prosecution, tampering with a witness with purpose to induce the witness to testify falsely, or victim tampering is a class C felony if the original charge is a felony. Otherwise, tampering with a witness or victim tampering is a class A misdemeanor. Persons convicted under this section shall not be eligible for parole.
(Emphasis added.) Royal's alleged tampering with the victim in the Misdemeanor Case led to his charge in the Felony Tampering Case.
On February 6, 2008, Royal pled guilty in the Felony Tampering Case to the class C felony of victim tampering even though an essential element of the crime—an original charge that was a felony—could not have been established on the guilty plea record as a matter of law. On the same date and at the same time, Royal pled guilty to charges in an unrelated criminal matter pending in Texas County, Case Number 07X1–CR00016–01 ("Unrelated Felony Case"). Following his guilty pleas, Royal was sentenced to seven years in the Felony Tampering Case with that sentence to be served consecutively to a seven year sentence imposed in the Unrelated Felony Case. The imposition of both sentences was suspended and Royal was placed on four years probation.
In May 2009, Royal's probation was revoked and his suspended sentences in the Felony Tampering Case and in the Unrelated Felony Case were executed. Royal was committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections at the Boonville Correctional Center to serve his sentences. Royal did not file a timely post-conviction motion pursuant to Rule 24.035 challenging his conviction and sentence in the Felony Tampering Case.
On December 10, 2015, Royal filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his seven-year sentence in the Felony Tampering Case because an essential element of the crime of felony victim tampering was not established, as the related original charge in the Misdemeanor Case was not a felony. Royal acknowledges, however, that he admitted to conduct during his guilty plea hearing that would have subjected him to conviction of the class A misdemeanor of victim tampering pursuant to section 575.270.
On December 14, 2015, this court issued its Order to Show Cause directing Respondent to answer the Petition. The Respondent did so on December 28, 2015. Respondent concedes that Royal's charge and conviction in the Felony Tampering Case should have been classified as a class A misdemeanor because the related original charge in the Misdemeanor Case was not a felony.
Rule 91.01(b) provides that "[a]ny person restrained of liberty within this state may petition for a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such restraint." " ‘[I]t is settled that the imposition of a sentence beyond that permitted by the applicable statute or rule may be raised by way of a writ...
To continue reading
Request your trial