State ex rel. Williamson v. Cardona
| Decision Date | 15 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 109270,ED 109270 |
| Citation | 614 S.W.3d 634 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. Ernie L. WILLIAMSON, Relator, v. Hon. Troy A. CARDONA, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
ATTORNEYS FOR RELATOR: Ernie L. Williamson, Pro Se, #362343 P.C.C., 11593 State Highway O, Mineral Point, MO 63660.
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Lindsay Whalen, 300 Main Street, Hillsboro, MO 63050.
Ernie Williamson ("Relator") seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the Honorable Troy A. Cardona ("Respondent") to release Relator from the Missouri Department of Corrections and place him on probation because he successfully completed the long-term substance abuse treatment program pursuant to Section 217.362. The State has filed suggestions in support; Respondent has not filed a response. In the interest of justice as permitted by Rule 84.24(e) and (i), this Court dispenses with a preliminary order, answer, further briefing and oral argument and issues a peremptory writ of mandamus.
Relator pled guilty to drug trafficking, completed the 120-day "shock" drug treatment program and was placed on probation. Relator's probation was later revoked, and Respondent sentenced him to 20 years in the Missouri Department of Corrections under Section 217.362, which allows a nonviolent offender to be released on probation upon successful completion of a long-term drug treatment program, during which time the execution of the offender's sentence is suspended. Relator entered the long-term treatment program on May 16, 2018. On May 3, 2019, the Missouri Department of Corrections Board of Probation and Parole submitted an investigation report outlining Relator's assessment and program participation. The report stated that Relator successfully completed the requirements of the long-term treatment program, noting that he had one conduct violation during the program and two other conduct violations several months prior to his entry in the drug treatment program. The Board recommended a release date of June 29, 2019.
On June 11, 2019, Respondent denied Relator's release and ordered execution of Relator's 20-year sentence. Respondent found that Relator "stole property of another while in the treatment program and two other violations before entry into the program," which Respondent found demonstrated "a clear inability to follow conditions of probation supervision and to release him would be an abuse of discretion in believing otherwise." Respondent did not cite any other evidence to support his conclusion that Relator was unfit for probation. Relator subsequently filed the present petition for writ of mandamus. The State of Missouri, by and through the prosecuting attorney of Jefferson County, agrees that the relief sought by Relator should be granted. We agree.
The denial of probation is properly challenged via a writ of mandamus. State ex rel. Cullen v. Cardona , 568 S.W.3d 492, 494 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019). Mandamus is appropriate when a court has exceeded its jurisdiction or authority and where no remedy exists through appeal. Id. "While mandamus does not ordinarily lie to control a lower court's exercise of discretion, if the court's action is incorrect as a matter of law, then it has abused any discretion it may have had, and mandamus is appropriate." State ex rel. Upshaw v. Cardona , 606 S.W.3d 228, 230 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted).
The final decision to release an offender to probation after completion of the long-term drug treatment program under Section 217.362 lies within the discretion of the trial court. Id. at 231. But that decision must be supported by substantial competent evidence on the record demonstrating that probation is not appropriate. Id. ; see also Cullen , 568 S.W.3d at 495. Here, Respondent denied probation based on Relator's one conduct violation during the treatment program and two pre-program conduct violations. Respondent did not hold an evidentiary hearing regarding these violations and was not required to under the applicable version of Section 217.362.3. See Upshaw, 606 S.W.3d at 231 ; see also Cullen , 568 S.W.3d at 495. But, as a result, there is limited information in the record about these violations. In fact, the only information about these conduct violations in the record before Respondent was a line-item recitation of the violations, with no further description, set out in the Board's report:
| Location | Date | Violation | Disposition | Imposed Mo/Day | Sus Day |
| OCC | 09/26 |
To continue reading
Request your trial