Bosworth v. State, 559 S.W.3d 5

Background

Appellant James Alan Bosworth pled guilty to four charges across two cases (two counts in each): burglary and stealing (Dec 2015 and Jul 2016); he was adjudicated a prior and persistent offender and sentenced on July 5, 2016.
Sentences: concurrent 15-year terms for two felony burglaries and one felony stealing; one count was an A misdemeanor (stealing < $500) with one year; all sentences pronounced and reduced to writing July 5, 2016.
After sentencing, the State filed two separate Motions to Add Restitution; hearings were held without Appellant physically present and without notice to his plea counsel; amended written judgments (Aug 10, 2016 and Oct 25, 2016) added restitution ($5,575 and $30) and language denying Earned Compliance Credits (ECC) until restitution paid.
Appellant filed a timely Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion raising (1) Bazell-based challenge that a stealing conviction should be a misdemeanor (not felony); (2–5) challenges to the trial court’s authority to add restitution after final judgment and adequacy of evidence for restitution; and (3,6) challenge to denial of ECC until restitution paid.
The motion court denied relief; on appeal the State conceded the amended restitution judgments were nullities because the trial court exhausted jurisdiction after sentencing. The appellate court: affirmed denial of the Bazell claim, vacated/struck the two amended restitution judgments under Rule 84.14, and dismissed remaining restitution/ECC claims as moot.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Bazell renders Appellant’s felony stealing conviction unlawful (enhancement from misdemeanor to felony)	Bazell: Section 570.030 authorizes only misdemeanor punishment for stealing; Appellant’s felony sentence exceeded statutory maximum	Windeknecht and related authorities limit Bazell’s retroactivity; after guilty plea and final judgment, Bazell cannot be applied to obtain post-conviction relief	Denied — Bazell claim cannot succeed in a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion after plea/final judgment; affirmed
Whether the court had jurisdiction to amend written judgments to add restitution after sentencing (Case 16BB)	Modification to add restitution after written judgment increased punishment and was unlawful without returning Appellant for resentencing	Trial court had exhausted jurisdiction after sentencing; State conceded amended restitution judgments were nullities	Granted relief — Aug 10 and Oct 25 amended judgments stricken/vacated under Rule 84.14
Whether restitution amount ($5,575) was supported by evidence	Appellant: no finding or evidence supporting the $5,575 restitution amount for the offense	State ultimately conceded restitution orders were nullities due to lack of jurisdiction to amend final judgments	Moot after vacatur of amended judgments; restitution orders vacated
Whether trial court could deny ECC until restitution paid	Appellant: denial of ECC until restitution paid violated authority/due process	Motion court: ECC award/rescission not subject to post-conviction review; State conceded amended judgments adding restitution were nullities	Moot after vacatur of amended judgments; ECC-related claims dismissed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016) (held Section 570.030 stealing statute generally authorizes misdemeanor punishment and identified limits on felony enhancement)
State v. Smith, 522 S.W.3d 221 (Mo. banc 2017) (reaffirmed Bazell interpretation)
State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer, 530 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. banc 2017) (held Bazell applies prospectively and not retroactively except for cases pending on direct appeal)
State v. Paden, 533 S.W.3d 731 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (explains final judgment in criminal case occurs when sentence is entered and trial court thereafter exhausts jurisdiction)
State v. Larson, 79 S.W.3d 891 (Mo. banc 2002) (same principle: sentencing entry creates final judgment and limits further trial-court action)