State v. Bellamy
| Decision Date | 11 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | WD 83066 |
| Citation | 607 S.W.3d 745 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Billy Joe BELLAMY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Justin Andrew Moody, Jefferson City, MO, Counsel for Respondent.
Appellant Acting Pro Se, Moberly, MO.
Before Division Two: Karen King Mitchell, Presiding Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judge, W. Douglas Thomson, Judge
Billy Joe Bellamy appeals the circuit court's denial of his July 12, 2019, motion titled "Motion for Relief from Order or Judgment Pursuant to Rule 74.06(b)(4) Mo. Sup. Ct. (2019)" wherein Bellamy claims the circuit court's July 8, 2014, Judgment sentencing him to twenty years’ imprisonment for burglary, stealing, and money laundering is void because the court never orally committed him to the Department of Corrections pursuant to Section 558.011.3(1), RSMo 2008. We reverse and remand to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss Bellamy's Motion as successive under Rule 24.035.
Bellamy pleaded guilty on July 8, 2014, to first-degree burglary, theft of property worth $25,000 or more, money laundering, resisting arrest, pharmacy robbery, and failure to file and pay state income tax. At the guilty plea hearing, the trial court announced Bellamy's sentences as follows:
Bellamy filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief wherein he claimed the circuit court erred in ordering him to pay restitution in addition to a term of imprisonment. Bellamy v. State , 525 S.W.3d 166, 168 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017). After reviewing Bellamy's claim, this court concluded that, the imposition of restitution pursuant to a statute amended after Bellamy committed his crimes increased the punishment for Bellamy's crimes beyond what it was at the time he committed them. Id. at 171. We reversed the circuit court's judgment in part, striking the restitution condition of Bellamy's sentence, and the judgment was affirmed in all other respects. Id. at 171-72.
On November 29, 2018, Bellamy filed "Defendant's Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order" wherein Bellamy claimed, in part, that the written judgment of the court committing Bellamy to the custody of the Department of Corrections was inconsistent with the oral pronouncement which made no such commitment. This motion was denied by the circuit court on December 13, 2018. Bellamy made this same claim in a "Motion for Relief from Order or Judgment Pursuant to Rule 74.06(b)(4) Mo. Sup. Ct. (2019)" filed July 12, 2019, also contending the Judgment with regard to three of his sentences is void. The circuit court denied the motion by docket entry July 15, 2019. This appeal follows.
In Bellamy's sole point on appeal he contends the circuit court's July 8, 2014, Judgment sentencing him to twenty years’ imprisonment for burglary, stealing, and money laundering is void because the court never orally committed him to the Department of Corrections pursuant to Section 558.011.3(1). Section 558.011.3(1) states: "When a regular sentence of imprisonment for a felony is imposed, the court shall commit the person to the custody of the department of corrections for the term imposed under section 557.036, or until released under procedures established elsewhere by law." Bellamy argues that Section 558.011.3(1) required the court to use the word "commit" in its oral pronouncement and the court's failure to do so resulted in a void Judgment. He argues the sentence is inconsistent with due process of law and equal protection of law because a commitment order is mandatory before an institution will accept an inmate into a facility, and Bellamy was accepted and incarcerated without a commitment order.1
"[T]he circuit court's judgment convicting and sentencing [Bellamy] is ‘void’ only if the court lacked jurisdiction to enter it, or if the entry of the judgment otherwise violated due process." State v. Oerly , 446 S.W.3d 304, 308 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). Bellamy makes no claim that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment. While Bellamy claims the judgment is "void" because the oral pronouncement failed to recite alleged statutorily required language, thereby violating his Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection, "Rule 24.035 provides the exclusive remedy for a person ‘convicted of a felony on a plea of guilty ... who claims that the conviction or sentence imposed violates the constitution and laws of this state....’ " State ex rel. Taylor v. Moore , 136 S.W.3d 799, 801 (Mo. banc 2004) (quoting Rule 24.035). Hence, while titled a Rule 74.06(b)(4) motion, Bellamy's motion was in actuality a Rule 24.035 motion.
Bellamy makes no claim that there was ever any true confusion that the court's oral pronouncement committed Bellamy to the Department of Corrections for Bellamy's burglary, stealing, and money laundering crimes when the court stated Bellamy was "sentenced to twenty years on each of the three counts." Such a claim would be belied by the record. The State recommended at the guilty plea hearing that, "With respect to case 12-881-01, the State's recommendation is that on Counts I, II, and III that the Defendant be sentenced to 20 years in the Missouri Department of Corrections." Bellamy asked the court to accept the State's recommendation. Bellamy's sole claim on appeal seems to be that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial