Etenburn v. State
341 S.W.3d 737
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Movant Charles S. Etenburn pleaded guilty in three Phelps County cases pursuant to a purported plea agreement combining all cases.
- The agreement allegedly required ten years in the DOC under 559.115 general shock, with placement in a 120-day shock program and possible drug court conditions.
- At the plea hearing, the court and parties acknowledged a joint understanding that Movant would undergo 120-day general shock with potential probation thereafter.
- Written judgments, entered April 29, 2008, ordered ten-year terms and general shock incarceration under 559.115 and set a May 8, 2008 commitment date.
- Movant later did not appear; the court then amended the judgments by omitting the shock incarceration provision, prompting post-conviction relief proceedings.
- The motion court held no prejudice from the amendments because the outcome depended on discretionary probation after 120 days, and the oral pronouncements matched the amended judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea court had authority to amend judgments | Movant argues the amendments were unauthorized and violated Rule 24.02(d). | State contends amendments reflect court's post-plea correction of written judgments, not retroactive coercion. | No prejudicial error; limited remand to correct judgments to reflect oral sentence. |
| Whether Movant was prejudiced by the amended judgments | Movant asserts he was deprived of probation opportunity under 559.115.3. | State maintains prejudice is not shown because probation after 120 days is discretionary and the oral sentence controlled. | Not clearly erroneous; no prejudice shown because oral pronouncements controlled and judgments were aligned conceptually after correction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rupert v. State, 250 S.W.3d 442 (Mo. App. 2008) (written vs. oral sentence conflict; limits on post-plea amendments)
- Patterson, 959 S.W.2d 940 (Mo. App. 1997) (oral sentence controls when inconsistent with written judgment)
- Hall v. State, 190 S.W.3d 533 (Mo. App. 2006) (limited remand to correct written judgment to reflect oral sentence)
- Zinna v. Steele, 301 S.W.3d 510 (Mo. banc 2010) (full record review to ascertain unambiguous oral sentence)
- State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. banc 2006) (probation/review after shock incarceration; board considerations)