515 S.W.3d 224
Mo.2017Background
- Fleming pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree domestic assault and received concurrent seven-year sentences, suspended for a five-year probation term with conditions including payment of $4,263.50 in court costs within three years.
- Fleming was unemployed, receiving SSI disability, completed required programs (anger management, mental health), and made intermittent payments (totaling ≈ $1,100 before revocation and $864.95 in a 19‑month period post-admission).
- Probation officer reports documented Fleming’s financial struggles, recommended alternatives (community service, reduced payments), and noted Fleming could only afford minimal monthly payments.
- Fleming admitted at a 2011 hearing that he failed to pay as ordered; the court deferred disposition, set payments, and later held a 2013 disposition hearing where it revoked probation and ordered execution of sentence without inquiring into Fleming’s ability to pay.
- Fleming filed a habeas petition arguing the revocation violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights because the court revoked probation solely for indigency; the Missouri Supreme Court issued the writ, finding the revocation improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revoking probation solely for failure to pay court costs without inquiring into ability to pay violates due process | Fleming: Bearden requires court inquiry into reasons for nonpayment; without that, revocation for indigency is unconstitutional | State: Fleming’s admission of violation implies he could pay and willfully refused; court disposition was limited because admission was made earlier | Held: Court violated Bearden by not inquiring or making findings; revocation improper and Fleming must be restored to probation status or discharged if no reinitiation occurs |
| What relief is appropriate when improper revocation occurs after probationary term expired | Fleming: Restore to probation or discharge because term expired | State: May reinitiate proceedings to present additional evidence | Held: Fleming ordered discharged from imprisonment/parole and restored as probationer; because probation term expired, court may either discharge or reinitiate revocation within 60 days of mandate to present additional evidence |
| Whether record supported a legal finding of indigency and adequacy of alternatives to incarceration | Fleming: Record (SSI, officer reports, program completion, payments made) shows indigency and alternatives satisfied state interests | State: Additional evidence might show ability to pay; facts unknown due to limited hearing scope | Held: As a matter of law record sufficed to show indigency and that state interests were satisfied, but court allowed 60 days for state to present further evidence if available |
| Whether a parolee may seek habeas relief for improper probation revocation | Fleming: Parole restrains liberty sufficiently to seek habeas | State/dissent: Habeas limited to persons physically confined; release on parole moots petition | Held: Majority: parolee is sufficiently restrained for state habeas; dissent argues mootness but is not controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (Courts must inquire into reasons for failure to pay fines/costs before revoking probation)
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (Parole places significant restraints on liberty for habeas purposes)
- Schmeets v. Turner, 706 S.W.2d 504 (Mo. App.) (Revocation requires evidence and findings about reasons for failure to pay)
- Abel v. Wyrick, 574 S.W.2d 411 (Mo. banc 1978) (Due process requires statement of evidence/reasons when revoking probation)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Jaynes, 73 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. banc 2002) (Habeas corpus proper to challenge facial validity of confinement, including improper probation revocation)