Foster v. State
352 S.W.3d 357
Mo.2011Background
- Foster, convicted in 1977 of capital murder, first-degree robbery, and armed criminal action, is currently incarcerated on those sentences.
- In 2009, Foster was informed that funds deposited into his prison account to pay for coursework or legal fees could be seized under MIRA to reimburse incarceration costs.
- Foster filed a pro se petition for declaratory judgment seeking to bar MIRA application to him on ex post facto and retrospective grounds.
- The trial court dismissed, finding no justiciable controversy and lack of a ripe, pre-enforcement controversy.
- Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding Foster’s petition was not ripe because the facts necessary to adjudicate his constitutional claims were not developed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foster's petition presents a justiciable controversy | Foster argues a live conflict exists due to potential future asset seizures under MIRA. | State contends no ripe controversy exists absent a pending MIRA action or asset seizure. | Not ripe; no presently existing, fully developed controversy |
| Whether applying MIRA to Foster violates ex post facto principles | MIRA imposed costs after crimes committed, violating ex post facto protections. | MIRA does not target past crimes or impose additional punishment; applicability is prospective. | Not reached on the merits because the claim is not ripe |
| Whether MIRA is retroactive or retrospective under the state constitution | MIRA operates retroactively to deprive assets thought to be earned after commission of crimes. | Statute governs future actions and is not retroactive, as it is a reimbursement mechanism. | Not reached; pre-enforcement review not ripe |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Kansas v. Nixon, 220 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. banc 2007) (pre-enforcement challenges ripe when facts are fully developed and law affects plaintiffs)
- Missouri Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists, Inc. v. State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts, 343 S.W.3d 348 (Mo. banc 2011) (pre-enforcement review of administrative rule permissible)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Hughes, 281 S.W.3d 902 (Mo. App. 2009) (assets not in offender's possession cannot trigger enforcement)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Peterson, 253 S.W.3d 77 (Mo. banc 2008) (good cause prerequisite to filing MIRA action; threshold condition to sue)
- State v. Smith, 779 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. banc 1989) (determines appellate reach for statute validity questions)