Spencer v. State
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1776
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Spencer, a psychologist, was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of forcible rape and three counts of forcible sodomy; total sentence was 15 years.
- Missouri created the MoSOP under § 589.040 to rehabilitate sex-offenders and requires completion for eligibility for parole or time credits.
- Spencer was twice terminated from MoSOP for refusing to acknowledge guilt; he alleges this violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
- He filed a 2009 petition for declaratory relief challenging MoSOP as unconstitutional and seeking release-related relief.
- The circuit court dismissed the petition with prejudice, and Spencer appeals.
- The Board and DOC argue discretionary nature of parole and good-time credits means no constitutional violation.
- The issues include Fifth Amendment claim, ex post facto claim, and amendment-rights claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fifth Amendment compulsion | Spencer: MoSOP forces admission of guilt | State: MoSOP admission is rehabilitative, not punitive | No Fifth Amendment violation; admissions are connected to rehabilitation and consequences are not atypical. |
| Ex post facto assertion | Spencer: extended release date constitutes new punishment | Rentschler and policy show no new punishment, only enforcement of existing law | No ex post facto violation; extension is enforcement mechanism, not additional punishment. |
| Leave to amend petition | Spencer sought amendment to cure pleading defects | Court acted within discretion to deny amendment | No abuse of discretion; amendment would be futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (U.S. 2002) (Fifth Amendment and rehabilitation program coherence in prisons)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (due process and Sandin hardship test for liberty interests)
- Rentschler v. Nixon, 311 S.W.3d 783 (Mo. banc 2010) (extension of conditional release not punishment under ex post facto)
- Depauw v. Luebbers, 285 S.W.3d 805 (Mo.App. E.D. 2009) (Da emphasizes discretionary nature of MO-SOP and rehabilitation focus)
- Winslow v. Nixon, 93 S.W.3d 795 (Mo.App. E.D. 2002) (MOSOP denial of credits not a denial of liberty interest under Sandin)
- Badgley v. Mo. Dep't of Corr., 977 S.W.2d 272 (Mo.App. W.D. 1998) (discretionary time credits vesting authority in DOC)
- Miller v. Mitchell, 25 S.W.3d 658 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) (enforcement policy for disciplinary credits)