Mason v. State
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 245
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Mason pled guilty to statutory sodomy in the first degree on July 5, 2007, admitting to licking a 6-year-old victim's vagina.
- At sentencing, a presentence investigation report (PIR) included a California juvenile adjudication for a Lewd and Lascivious Act With a Child Under 14.
- A sentencing hearing occurred on September 13, 2007, with testimony from Mason and a cellmate alleging prior sexual misconduct.
- The PIR contained Mason’s juvenile California offense and other information; the court sentenced Mason to 75 years’ imprisonment.
- Mason filed Rule 24.035 post-conviction motions challenging the use of the California offense; evidentiary hearing was held June 25, 2010 and motion denied September 8, 2010.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that Missouri law does not prohibit referencing out-of-state juvenile offenses in sentencing assessment reports and that the issue is dispositive; two related claims were not decided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 211.321.1 prohibits out-of-state juvenile offenses in sentencing reports. | Mason; seeks exclusion of California juvenile offense. | State; argues 211.321.1 limits only Missouri juvenile records and does not govern sentencing reports. | denied; 211.321.1 governs disclosure of Missouri offenses and does not bar out-of-state offenses in sentencing reports. |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct occurred by citing California juvenile adjudication in arguing for a longer sentence. | Mason; prosecutorial misconduct due to improper evidence use. | State; argues use was within adversarial process and permissible in sentencing. | Not reached/considered as point one dispositive. |
| Whether defense counsel's failure to object to the sentencing report violated due process or effective assistance. | Mason; counsel failed to object. | Not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Palmer v. Keet, 627 S.W.2d 928 (Mo.App.1982) (limits on release of juvenile records in presentence reports; discusses scope of 211.321.)
- State ex rel. Whittaker v. Webber, 605 S.W.2d 179 (Mo.App.1980) (pre-211.321 practice; discusses scope of juvenile records in sentencing.)
- Martin v. State, 291 S.W.3d 846 (Mo.App.2009) (pre-sentence admissibility; admissibility of evidence in sentencing.)
- McMillin v. State, 783 S.W.2d 82 (Mo. banc 1990) (evidence in sentencing; admissibility for penalty phase.)
- Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992) (abrogated related findings; sentencing considerations.)
- State v. Murillo, 149 S.W.3d 930 (Mo.App.2004) (due process in sentencing; adversarial proceedings.)
- Zink v. State, 278 S.W.3d 170 (Mo.banc 2009) (ineffective assistance; non-meritorious objections.)
- Berry v. State, 168 S.W.3d 527 (Mo.App.2005) (scope of admissible evidence in sentencing.)