Powell v. Department of Corrections
463 S.W.3d 838
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Jesse Powell filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Cole County Circuit Court alleging the Missouri DOC was unlawfully forcing him to serve his sentences in installments.
- The circuit court did not issue a Rule 94 preliminary order in mandamus; instead it issued a summons to the DOC (the summons is not in the record).
- The DOC filed suggestions in opposition, the court conducted proceedings, and on August 11, 2014 denied Powell’s petition on the merits, finding no unconstitutional installment requirement.
- Powell appealed the denial to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
- The appeals court first addressed whether it had authority to hear the appeal given the circuit court’s use of a summons rather than a Rule 94 preliminary order.
- Citing Missouri Supreme Court guidance in Boresi and related precedent, the appeals court declined to exercise discretion to hear the appeal and dismissed it for improper procedural posture (relator should have filed the writ in a higher court when no preliminary order issued).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals has authority to hear an appeal when the circuit court denied a mandamus petition after issuing a summons instead of a Rule 94 preliminary order | Powell argued the circuit court resolved the merits and thus the denial is appealable | DOC argued the circuit court failed to follow Rule 94 and the proper remedy was to file the writ in a higher court | Court dismissed appeal: because the circuit court issued a summons rather than a preliminary order, Powell’s remedy was to file the writ in a higher court; the appeals court declined to exercise discretion to review on merits |
| Whether DOC unlawfully required Powell to serve sentences in installments | Powell asserted the DOC’s practice was unconstitutional | DOC denied the allegation and filed suggestions in opposition | The circuit court found Powell’s claim lacked merit, but the appeals court did not reach this substantive holding because it dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Dep’t of Veterans Affairs v. Boresi, 396 S.W.3d 356 (Mo. banc 2013) (supreme court addressed use of summons in lieu of Rule 94 preliminary order and exercised discretion to decide the case but warned the practice is unauthorized and should not be followed)
- Stone v. Mo. Dep’t of Corrections, Prob. & Parole Bd., 313 S.W.3d 158 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (generally directs relator to file in a higher court when circuit court denies mandamus without issuing a preliminary order)
- Wheat v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 932 S.W.2d 835 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (noting appeal is proper when a court issues a preliminary order then resolves the merits)
- Merrell v. Dir. of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (appeal does not lie where preliminary order issued but court did not reach merits and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Stoecker v. Dir. of Revenue, 734 S.W.2d 263 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987) (no appeal from dismissal of a writ proceeding where preliminary order issued but dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction)