Daquetta D. Davis v. State of Missouri
2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 17
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Davis pleaded guilty to two counts of class C felony perjury and admitted two prior felony convictions; indictment charged her as a prior and persistent offender under §558.016.
- At plea hearing Davis acknowledged the prior felonies and that the plea agreement allowed the court to impose up to ten years per count.
- At sentencing the court imposed concurrent ten-year terms but did not announce a persistent-offender finding on the record; the original judgment omitted the finding.
- The court later issued an amended judgment adding the persistent-offender finding after sentencing.
- Davis filed a Rule 24.035 motion asserting the sentence was invalid because the court failed to make the required statutory findings before sentencing; the motion court denied relief and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentencing without making statutory persistent-offender findings before sentencing rendered the sentence outside the statutory range and invalid | Davis: court’s failure to make findings prior to sentencing violated §§558.016 and 558.021 and invalidated the enhanced sentence | State: Davis admitted prior felonies on the record and was charged as a persistent offender; failure to announce findings before sentencing is a procedural defect that does not void the judgment | Court: Affirmed — omission was a procedural deficiency; record contained sufficient admissions/evidence to support persistent-offender status and validly permit the enhanced sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. State, 356 S.W.3d 148 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard of review for denial of Rule 24.035 motion)
- Garris v. State, 389 S.W.3d 648 (Mo. banc 2012) (burden on movant to show motion court clearly erred)
- State v. Schnelle, 398 S.W.3d 37 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (state’s burden to prove prior convictions relieved when defendant admits them)
- State v. Gibbs, 306 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (defendant’s on-the-record admission waives state’s proof requirement)
- O’Haren v. State, 927 S.W.2d 447 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (failure to make specific findings called procedural deficiency not affecting judgment)
- Hight v. State, 841 S.W.2d 278 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992) (same: missing statutory findings are procedural and do not invalidate judgment)