State v. Richey
| Decision Date | 19 March 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 97604, No. SC 97630,SC 97604 |
| Citation | 569 S.W.3d 420 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. George RICHEY, Appellant. and State of Missouri, Respondent, v. John B. Wright, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
569 S.W.3d 420
STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
George RICHEY, Appellant.
and
State of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
John B. Wright, Appellant.
No. SC 97604
No. SC 97630
Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.
Opinion issued March 19, 2019
In SC97604, Richey was represented by Matthew Mueller of the public defender’s office in Kansas City, (816) 889-7699.
The state was represented by Joshua P. Jones of Collins & Jones PC in Osceola, (417) 646-2245.
The St. Clair County prosecutor, Daniel B. Dysart, in Osceola, (417) 646-2512.
Mary R. Russell, Judge
The issue to be decided in these two cases is whether a jail board bill may be taxed as "court costs" in criminal cases. In both cases, the circuit courts overruled motions to retax costs after each movant had his board bill taxed as costs against him by the circuit court. Because no statutory authority exists to treat jail board bills as court costs, the circuit courts' rulings are reversed and the cases are remanded.
Background
Richey
George Richey pleaded guilty in April 2015 to violating an order of protection and was sentenced to 90 days in the St. Clair County jail with credit for time served. Upon his release from jail, the circuit court ordered him to pay the board bill, amounting to $3,150. The circuit clerk prepared a fee report, itemizing the amounts charged to Richey, which included his board bill and various other smaller charges. In total, Richey was ordered to pay $3,266.50 as court costs by December 31 of that year.
Richey made no payments, and in January 2016, the circuit court issued an arrest warrant for "failure to obey [the] judge’s order:" in essence, failure to pay the court costs. He was placed in custody in the county jail again with his bond set in the amount of the outstanding court costs. After Richey was released in April 2016, the circuit court taxed as court costs another board bill, this time for $2,275, for the 65 days Richey served in jail on the January warrant. Richey’s new court costs bill amounted to $5,541.50:
1) LET-County $2.00
2) Dom Viol-Crim/County Ordinance $0.00
3) Inmate Pris Detainee Security $2.00
4) Misdemeanor Costs w/SRF $102.50
5) CVC-$10 Other $10.00
6) Board Bill-Deft $3,150.00
7) Board Bill-Deft $2,275.00
After his release, Richey was required to appear in court for "payment review hearings" approximately once a month. In total, Richey attended 18 "payment review hearings" before the circuit court from April 2016 to March 2018. Richey made payments totaling $1,600 during those months, but as of May 2018, Richey still owed $10 for the "CVC" charge and $3,931.50 for the two board bills.
Richey filed a motion to retax costs in March 2018, arguing the circuit court had no statutory authority to tax his board bills as court costs. The circuit court overruled the motion. Richey appeals.
Wright
John Wright pleaded guilty in 2016 to stealing and resisting arrest. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail with credit for time served. The circuit clerk prepared a fee report and taxed to Wright as court costs a jail board bill in the amount of $1,358.28. The total amount taxed to Wright, including various other small charges, was $1,501.78:
1) LET-County $2.00
2) Dom Viol-Crim/County Ordinance $2.00
3) Inmate Pris Detainee Security $2.00
4) Misdemeanor Costs w/SRF $102.50
5) CVC-$10 Other $10.00
6) Board Bill-Deft $1,358.28
7) Time Payment Fee $25.00
After the judgment and fee schedule were entered in July 2016, the circuit court scheduled Wright’s case for monthly show cause hearings to monitor his payments. By March 2018, Wright had appeared 13 times before the circuit court, making sporadic payments totaling $380 toward the court costs.
Wright also filed a motion to retax costs, arguing there was no statutory authority to tax the board bill as court costs. Further, he claimed the $380 in payments he had made had exceeded the non-board bill fees and, for this reason, he was entitled to a refund of the extra amount paid. The circuit court overruled the motion, and Wright appeals.1
Standard of Review
Statutory interpretation is an issue of law that this Court reviews de novo. State v. Johnson , 524 S.W.3d 505, 510 (Mo. banc 2017). When interpreting a statute, "each word, clause, sentence, and section of a statute should be given meaning." Middleton v. Mo. Dept. of Corrections , 278 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Mo. banc 2009).
Analysis
Richey and Wright argue there is no statutory authority permitting jail board bills to be taxed as court costs.2 " ‘Costs’ are a creature of statute," and courts do not have any inherent power to tax them. State ex rel. Merrell v. Carter , 518 S.W.3d 798, 800 (Mo. banc 2017). Costs may only be granted "by virtue of express statutory authority." Id. "Statutes allowing the taxation of costs are strictly construed." Id. "[N]o right to or liability for costs exists in the absence of statutory authorization." Cramer v. Smith , 350 Mo. 736, 168 S.W.2d 1039, 1040 (Mo. banc 1943). Express statutory authority must be clear, definite, and unambiguous.3 There is no power to tax costs "unless a finger can be put upon a statute permitting it." Jacoby v. Mo. Valley Drainage Dist. , 349 Mo. 818, 163 S.W.2d 930, 931 (Mo. banc 1942).
The statutes relied upon by the State fall short of this standard. The State relies on sections 488.010, 550.010, and 550.0304 to support its position that jail board bills may be taxed as "court costs." Section 488.010 defines "court costs" as "the total of fees, miscellaneous charges and surcharges[ ] imposed in a particular case." Section 488.010(1). The State contends jail board fees may be construed as "miscellaneous charges," which is defined as "the amounts allowed by law for services provided by individuals or entities other than the court." Section 488.010(3). According to the State, incarceration is a "service" for which Richey and Wright may be billed under section 488.010.
"Service" is defined as "an act done for the benefit or at the command of another." Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 2075 (2002). Reasonable minds may differ as to whether incarceration may be considered a "service," but because this Court is required to construe cost taxation statutes strictly, section 488.010 cannot be found to provide express statutory authorization to allow jail debt to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brandolese
...Brandolese's claim involves a question of statutory interpretation, which is a question of law this Court reviews de novo. State v. Richey , 569 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Mo. banc 2019). "It is a basic rule of statutory construction that words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning wheneve......
-
State v. Savage
...retax is appropriate to address taxation of court costs alleged to be in error as shown in the party's fee report. See State v. Richey , 569 S.W.3d 420, 425-26 (Mo. 2019) (on remand ordering circuit courts to retax costs and remove board bill liability from defendants’ fee reports); State v......
-
Mo. State Conference of the Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. State
...Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). "Statutory interpretation is an issue of law that this Court reviews de novo. " State v. Richey , 569 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Mo. banc 2019).Section 115.277.1(2) allows voters to vote absentee if they are incapacitated or confining due to illness or disa......
-
Wilson v. City of Kan. City
...only pursuant to express statutory authority. Id. "Express statutory authority must be clear, definite, and unambiguous." State v. Richey , 569 S.W.3d 420, 423 (Mo. banc 2019). Statutes conferring the power to tax costs are strictly construed. Merrell , 518 S.W.3d at 800. Whether a statute ......