525 S.W.3d 166
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- In March 2011 Bellamy burglarized a Saline County home and stole $25,000 in coins; he sold the coins and cashed the buyer’s check.
- Bellamy pleaded guilty in July 2014 to first-degree burglary, theft (≥ $25,000), and money laundering.
- The court sentenced him to concurrent 20-year prison terms and ordered $100,000 in restitution.
- Bellamy filed a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion arguing the sentencing court exceeded its authority by imposing both imprisonment and restitution for crimes committed in 2011.
- The motion court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; Bellamy appealed.
- The appellate court considered whether applying the 2013 amendment to §559.105 (allowing restitution with imprisonment) to 2011 conduct violated the ex post facto clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court exceeded its authority by imposing prison and restitution together for crimes committed in 2011 | Bellamy: Courts lacked authority in 2011 to order both imprisonment and restitution; applying the 2013 law is impermissible | State: §559.105 (as applied) is remedial, not punitive, so retroactive application does not violate ex post facto | Court: Ordering restitution in addition to prison increased punishment as applied to Bellamy; restitution order violated ex post facto and is stricken |
| Whether §559.105 (2013) is punitive for ex post facto analysis | Bellamy: Section’s parole/probation consequences show punitive effect | State: Prior cases treated some restitution statutes as remedial (e.g., Myers) | Court: Provisions tying restitution to parole/probation release and enforcement demonstrate punitive purpose; statute increased punishment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schnelle, 398 S.W.3d 37 (Mo. App. 2013) (courts previously lacked authority to impose prison and restitution together)
- Zarhouni v. State, 313 S.W.3d 713 (Mo. App. 2010) (same principle)
- State v. Roddy, 998 S.W.2d 562 (Mo. App. 1999) (same principle)
- State ex rel. Strauser v. Martinez, 416 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2014) (discussing 2013 amendment repeal of prior prohibition)
- State v. Harris, 414 S.W.3d 447 (Mo. banc 2013) (ex post facto test: applies to pre-enactment conduct and increases penalty)
- United States v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998) (MVRA analysis treating restitution as criminal punishment for ex post facto purposes)
- United States v. Newman, 144 F.3d 531 (7th Cir. 1998) (contrasting view that MVRA restitution is nonpunitive)
- United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1239 (8th Cir. 1997) (distinguishing when restitution is punitive for constitutional purposes)
- State v. Honeycutt, 421 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. banc 2013) (distinguishing retrospective clause from ex post facto analysis)