Westcott v. State
| Decision Date | 06 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 73934.,WD 73934. |
| Parties | Karen Ray WESTCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
361 S.W.3d 468
Karen Ray WESTCOTT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent.
No. WD 73934.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
March 6, 2012.Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to
[361 S.W.3d 469]
Karen Ray Westcott, Appellant Pro Se.
Robert L. Rice, Maryville, MO, for respondent.
Before Division One: CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, Presiding Judge, THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge and KAREN KING MITCHELL, Judge.
CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, Judge.
Karen Ray Westcott (“Westcott”) appeals from an order and judgment denying his motion for reconsideration of a motion for relief from judgment or order pursuant to Rule 74.06(b). Westcott claims that he was wrongfully detained to serve a two-year jail sentence immediately following his release from the Department of Corrections. We dismiss Westcott's appeal as moot.
On March 21, 1990, a Worth County jury 1 convicted Westcott of three counts of
[361 S.W.3d 470]
sexual abuse in the first degree, two counts of deviate sexual assault in the first degree, one count of sexual assault in the first degree, and two counts of misdemeanor sexual assault in the second degree. 2 The charges arose out of the sexual abuse and sexual assault of Westcott's wife's teenage daughter.
On April 20, 1990, Westcott was sentenced to serve thirty-six years of imprisonment in the Department of Corrections (the collective sentences imposed on each of Counts I through VI), and to serve two years in the county jail (the collective sentences imposed on the misdemeanor convictions on Counts VII and VIII). The trial court ordered all of the sentences to run consecutively as follows:
It is ordered that all sentences run consecutive to one another and not concurrent for a total of thirty-eight (38) years, said sentence to be served in the order in which the defendant was found guilty, that is, Count II to follow Count I, Count III to follow Count II, etc. The Clerk is directed to make a notation on the commitment order to the Missouri Department of Corrections informing the Department of Corrections that upon completion of defendant's term in the Missouri Department of Corrections, a detainer is to be entered so as to return defendant to this Court for the service of the remaining two (2) years in the county jail.
(Emphasis added.)
Westcott immediately began serving his term of imprisonment in the Department of Corrections. After serving approximately nineteen years of his thirty-six year term of imprisonment, Westcott was released on parole from the Department of Corrections on May 19, 2009. He was immediately detained by the Nodaway County Sheriff to begin serving his two year sentence in the county jail.
On May 27, 2009, Westcott filed a motion for injunctive relief in the underlying criminal case wherein his conviction was secured. The motion was denied on July 14, 2009. The nature of the request for injunctive relief is not clear from the record, as the motion itself is not included in the record. 3 However, the order and judgment denying the motion held, in part, that “Nothing remains of this matter other than [Westcott] serving the sentences imposed on the misdemeanor counts.” No appeal was taken from this order and judgment.
Though copies of the relevant pleadings are not included in the legal file, Westcott claims that on July 29, 2009, he filed a “motion for relief of judgment of order” in the criminal case which resulted in his conviction. Westcott claims this motion was denied on August 2, 2010, “on the ground that [a] motion for relief of judgment does not apply to criminal cases.” No appeal was taken from this order and judgment.
On October 4, 2010, Westcott initiated a civil action in Worth County by the filing of a “motion for relief of judgment or order pursuant to Rule 74.06(b)” (hereinafter “Motion for Relief”). The Motion for Relief claimed that the “Respondent 4 made a mistake, surprised [Westcott], used
[361 S.W.3d 471]
fraud, misrepresentation and used misconduct in the manner the Respondent is carrying out the judgment against [Westcott].”
Though difficult to distill from Westcott's rather convoluted brief and underlying pleadings, the essence of Westcott's claim is that he had not completed his term of imprisonment when he was released from prison on May 19, 2009, because his term of imprisonment included the time he actually served and a period of “conditional release” 5 pursuant to section 558.011.4(1).6 As such, according to Westcott, the detainer violated the April 20, 1990 judgment imposing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
M.L.H. v. Juvenile Officer
... ... issue is moot if our resolution of a matter on appeal in the ... appellant's favor would have no practical effect." ... Westcott v. State, 361 S.W.3d 468, 472 (Mo. App ... W.D. 2012) (citation omitted). "When an event occurs ... that makes a decision on appeal ... ...
-
M.L.H. v. Juvenile Officer
...issue is moot if our resolution of a matter on appeal in the appellant's favor would have no practical effect." Westcott v. State , 361 S.W.3d 468, 472 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (citation omitted). "When an event occurs that makes a decision on appeal unnecessary or makes it impossible for the a......
-
Strcue, Inc. v. Potts
...as they have been rendered moot. “ ‘Whether a case is moot is a legal issue that we raise sua sponte on appeal.’ ” Westcott v. State, 361 S.W.3d 468, 471–72 (Mo.App. W.D.2012) (quoting T.C.T. v. Shafinia, 351 S.W.3d 34, 36 (Mo.App. W.D.2011)). With regard to justiciability, a case is moot i......
-
State v. Castro, WD 75878.
...merits of Castro's arguments, we must first determine sua sponte if we have authority to review the issue presented. Westcott v. State, 361 S.W.3d 468, 471–472 (Mo.App.W.D.2012) (citations omitted). Pursuant to State v. Welch, an appeal must be dismissed in a criminal case in which the sent......