Martin v. Commonwealth
576 S.W.3d 120
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Troy Martin pleaded guilty to distribution and possession of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor and was sentenced to six years' imprisonment on October 28, 2015.
- Martin began serving his sentence in county jail, was transferred to the Department of Corrections on March 4, 2016, and filed a motion for shock probation on May 18, 2016.
- At the shock-probation hearing Martin testified about remorse and the impact of time served; the Commonwealth opposed the motion but did not object to the trial court's jurisdiction to hear it.
- The trial court granted shock probation but delayed its effective date until February 13, 2017, postponing Martin’s release from DOC custody.
- The Commonwealth appealed to the Court of Appeals arguing (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion and (2) the delayed effective date was improper; the Court of Appeals reversed on the jurisdictional ground without reaching the delayed-release issue.
- The Supreme Court held the Commonwealth waived the jurisdictional challenge by failing to raise it below and remanded to the Court of Appeals to address the delayed-effectiveness issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had particular-case jurisdiction to hear shock-probation motion | Martin: Commonwealth never objected below, so jurisdictional challenge is waived | Commonwealth: Jurisdiction over shock-probation motions is a sentencing issue reviewable anytime on appeal | Court: Particular-case jurisdiction was waived because Commonwealth failed to raise it at trial; appellate court should not have reached it |
| Whether sentencing-review doctrine allows appellate review of unpreserved jurisdictional defect | Martin: Sentencing jurisprudence protects defendants and does not rescue Commonwealth’s failure to preserve | Commonwealth: Jurisdiction over shock probation is a sentencing issue that is always reviewable | Court: Sentencing-review protects defendants from illegal sentences, not the Commonwealth; it does not save the waived issue |
| Whether Court of Appeals should have addressed trial court’s delayed-effective-date of shock probation | Martin: Court of Appeals erred by deciding jurisdiction and not addressing delayed release | Commonwealth: (did not present this below to trial court but raised on appeal) | Court: Remanded to Court of Appeals to consider the delayed-effectiveness challenge it had not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Steadman, 411 S.W.3d 717 (Ky. 2013) (interpreting timing and procedural aspects of shock probation)
- Jones v. Commonwealth, 382 S.W.3d 22 (Ky. 2011) (appellate courts’ inherent jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences)
- Kelly v. Commonwealth, 554 S.W.3d 854 (Ky. 2018) (discussion of sentencing-review principles)
- Travis v. Commonwealth, 327 S.W.3d 456 (Ky. 2010) (principles on appellate correction of sentencing errors)
- Hughes v. Commonwealth, 875 S.W.2d 99 (Ky. 1994) (particular-case jurisdiction is subject to waiver)