Watson v. State

• Decision Date: 27 February 2018
• Docket Number: WD 80863
• Citation: 545 S.W.3d 909
• Parties: Chad B. WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

545 S.W.3d 909

Chad B. WATSON, Appellant,

v.STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80863

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: February 27, 2018

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 22, 2018

Application for Transfer Denied May 22, 2018

Samuel E. Buffaloe, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

Before Division Four: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, Presiding, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Chad Watson ("Watson") appeals from an order denying his request for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035 which claimed that under the holding of State v. Bazell , 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016),¹ his sentence for stealing should not have been enhanced to a class C felony, and he should instead have been convicted of a class A misdemeanor. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural History

Watson pleaded guilty to the class C felony of stealing. He was placed on probation. Watson's probation was revoked, and he was thereafter sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

Watson timely filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 24.035. Appointed counsel timely filed an amended motion ("Amended Motion"). The Amended Motion alleged that pursuant to Bazell , Watson's five-year sentence exceeded the maximum punishment authorized by law for what should have been a class A misdemeanor. On May 23, 2017, the Amended Motion was denied by an unsigned, handwritten docket entry that stated "Amended Mot to vacate denied."

On May 26, 2017, Watson filed a motion for reconsideration or to amend the judgment which argued, among other things, that Rule 24.035(j)² required the motion court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held. Pursuant to Rule 78.07(c), Watson asked the motion court to amend its judgment in order to make the required findings and conclusions. On May 30, 2017, the motion to amend the judgment was denied by an unsigned, handwritten docket entry that stated "Mot For Reconsideration denied."

Watson timely filed a notice of appeal.

Analysis

Watson asserts a single point on appeal. He alleges that the motion court clearly erred in denying the Amended Motion because Watson's five-year term of imprisonment exceeded the maximum sentence authorized by law because pursuant to Bazell , Watson's sentence should not have been enhanced to a class C felony and should instead have remained a class A misdemeanor with a maximum one-year term of imprisonment. Before addressing the merits of Watson's point on appeal, we are required to address two procedural issues that potentially impact our authority to entertain this appeal.

Whether the motion court entered a final judgment for purposes of appeal

"Prior to reaching the merit of the issues set forth in this case, this Court must determine, sua sponte , if there is a final judgment." Ndegwa v. KSSO, LLC , 371 S.W.3d 798, 801 (Mo. banc 2012). "A final judgment is a prerequisite to appellate review." Id. "If the [motion] court's judgment was not a final judgment, then the appeal must be dismissed." Id.

Rule 74.01(a) provides in pertinent part that "[a] judgment is entered when a writing signed by the judge and denominated ‘judgment’ or ‘decree’ is filed." Rule 74.01(a) also provides that "[a] docket sheet entry complying with these requirements is a judgment unless the docket sheet entry indicates that the court will enter the judgment in a separate document." Rule 74.01(a) thus imposes three requirements on a final judgment: a writing, signed by the judge, and denominated as a judgment. Here, the May 23, 2017 docket entry denying Watson's Amended Motion was in writing, but was neither signed by the motion court nor denominated as a judgment.

It is settled, however, that orders disposing of post-conviction motions are not bound by the denomination requirement set forth in Rule 74.01(a). Although post-conviction proceedings pursuant to Rules 24.035 and 29.15 are civil proceedings, they are "governed by the rules of civil procedure insofar as applicable." Rule 24.035(a); Rule 29.15(a). Thus, "[a]ny rule of civil procedure that conflicts with Rule 29.15 or Rule 24.035 does not govern." State v. Reber , 976 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Mo. banc 1998) (citing Thomas v. State , 808 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Mo. banc 1991) ). Rules 24.035(k) and 29.15(k) provide that "[a]n order sustaining or overruling a motion filed under the provisions of [either rule] shall be deemed a final judgment for purposes of appeal." In Reber , the Supreme Court found this language to be in conflict with the denomination requirement set forth in Rule 74.01(a). 976 S.W.2d at 451. Reber then concluded that the conflicting language in Rule 74.01(a) "runs counter to the purposes of Rule 29.15 [and Rule 24.035]" as "[i]t would only cause delay in the processing of the [post-conviction] claim [to] apply[ ] the denomination requirement of Rule 74.01(a) to post-conviction appeals." Id. As a result, an order disposing of a post-conviction motion filed pursuant to Rules 24.035 or 29.15 need not be denominated as a judgment in order to be final for purposes of appeal. Id.

Reber did not address the signature requirement described in Rule 74.01(a). However, when it addressed the denomination requirement, Reber first compared Rules 24.035 and 29.15 with Rule 74.01(a) to determine whether the provisions were in conflict. Employing the same template, a comparison of Rules 24.035 and 29.15 with the signature requirement described in Rule 74.01(a) does not reveal any conflict. If anything, Rules 24.035(k) and 29.15(k) are expressly co-extensive with a signature requirement as both provide that "[a]ppellate review of the trial court's action on the motion filed under [either Rule] shall be limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the trial court are clearly erroneous." (Emphasis added). A signature ensures that the order being reviewed is, indeed, the trial court's action.

We are cognizant, however, of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mercer v. State , 512 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. banc 2017). In Mercer , the Supreme Court addressed whether a docket entry denying a section 547.035 motion for post-conviction DNA testing was final for purposes of appeal. Id. at 752. "The docket entry stated: ‘Cause called. Mercer's Post Conviction Motions Seeking Forensic DNA Testing overruled and denied.’ " Id. "The docket entry did not denominate the ruling as a judgment." Id. In addition, the docket entry "fail[ed] to meet [Rule 74.01(a)'s] definition [of a judgment] because it [was] not signed by the judge." Id. at 757 (Wilson, J., dissenting).

As with Rules 24.035(a) and 29.15(a), section 547.035.1 provides that motions pursuant to the statute are to be "governed by the rules of civil procedure insofar as applicable. " (Emphasis added). Unlike the approach taken in Reber , however, Mercer did not first compare section 547.035 with Rule 74.01(a) to determine if the provisions were in conflict. Instead, Mercer construed the phrase "insofar as applicable" to mean that a conflict exists simply "[i]f a rule of civil procedure conflicts with the purpose of the post-conviction rules," even in the absence of conflict in the provisions. 512 S.W.3d at 752 (emphasis added.) Mercer observed that the purpose of post-conviction rules is "to process prisoners' claims promptly, prevent the litigation of stale claims, and to ensure the legality of a sentence." Id. Mercer thus concluded that "[a]ny delay in dismissing the case merely so the circuit court could denominate its order as a judgment would thwart the purposes of Missouri's post-conviction rules in that it would not lead to a prompt resolution of Mercer's claim or ensure the legality of his conviction and sentence." Id. at 753. Though unmentioned, this rationale applies equally to the order's failure to comply with Rule 74.01(a)'s signature requirement. There is no escaping that even though the docket entry in Mercer was neither signed by a judge nor denominated a judgment, the docket entry was deemed a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Id. at 752-53.

We are constrained, therefore, to analogously conclude that Rule 74.01(a)'s signature requirement does not apply to orders denying Rule 24.035 or Rule 29.15 motions. The May 23, 2017 docket entry denying Watson's Amended Motion is a final judgment for purposes of appeal, even though the docket entry was not signed.³

Whether the motion court's failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law precludes appellate review

Though the May 23, 2017 docket entry is a final judgment for purposes of appeal, it does not include any factual findings or legal conclusions. Rules 24.035(j) and 29.15(j) require a motion court to "issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held." Written findings and conclusions are required because appellate review of a motion court's disposition of a post-conviction motion is limited to determining whether the trial court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. See Rule 24.035(k); Rule 29.15(k).

However, error occasioned by a motion court's failure to issue findings and conclusions must be preserved by filing a Rule 78.07(c) motion to amend the motion court's judgment.⁴ Watson filed a timely motion to amend the May 23, 2017 docket entry. The motion to amend referenced Rule 78.07(c), noted the absence of findings and conclusions in the May 23, 2017 docket entry, and asked the motion court to amend the judgment to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 24.035(j).

Notwithstanding the plain language of Rule 24.035(j) and Watson's Rule 78.07(c) motion, the motion court did not amend its May 23, 2017 docket entry, and instead entered another unsigned docket entry on May 30, 2017 summarily denying the motion to amend the judgment. The motion court ...