State ex rel. Hawley v. Heagney, 523 S.W.3d 447

George Fisher was committed to the Department of Mental Health (DMH) after NGRI (not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect) pleas were accepted in two separate matters: an Audrain County jail case and a Jackson County arson matter.
Audrain: An NGRI notice was filed by defense counsel (not signed by Fisher) but does not appear in the county court file; the State accepted the defense and the circuit court committed Fisher to DMH in 2008.
Jackson: Fisher pleaded guilty to first-degree arson in 2007, later sought post-conviction relief alleging NGRI; the State conceded and the conviction was vacated. An NGRI notice (not signed by Fisher) was filed the same day and the court committed him to DMH.
In March 2015 Fisher filed habeas in St. Louis circuit court challenging both commitments as based on deficient NGRI notices; the St. Louis court granted habeas relief as to both cases in Feb. 2016.
After oral argument in the Supreme Court, the Audrain prosecutor filed a nolle prosequi, effectively mooting any retrial risk for the Audrain case; the Supreme Court therefore held the Audrain relief moot.
The Supreme Court also held the Jackson County habeas relief was erroneous because § 552.030.2 does not require the accused’s signature on an NGRI notice, so that part of the St. Louis record was quashed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fisher)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Mootness of Audrain habeas relief	N/A—sought release based on deficient NGRI notice	Post-argument nolle prosequi ended prosecution risk	Audrain relief is moot due to nolle prosequi; quash/dismissed
Whether § 552.030.2 requires defendant’s signature on NGRI notice	NGRI notices were deficient because not signed by Fisher	Statute does not require a signature; acceptance by State suffices	Signature is not required; Jackson County relief quashed
Whether a lack of “no other defenses” language invalidates NGRI notice	Audrain notice lacked that language and was therefore defective	Court did not need to decide after mootness finding	Not reached for Audrain (moot)
Procedural propriety of St. Louis habeas writ (concurring view)	N/A	Habeas petition named wrong respondent and wrong venue after Fisher’s transfer	Concurrence: writ should not have issued because respondent/venue defects appeared on record

State ex rel. Nixon v. Sprick, 59 S.W.3d 515 (Mo. banc 2001) (certiorari review of habeas relief)
State ex rel. Nixon v. Jaynes, 61 S.W.3d 243 (Mo. banc 2001) (scope of certiorari review limited to record)
Mo. Mun. League v. State, 465 S.W.3d 904 (Mo. banc 2015) (mootness and justiciability principles)
State ex rel. Reed v. Reardon, 41 S.W.3d 470 (Mo. banc 2001) (appellate consideration of events outside record for mootness)
Parktown Imps., Inc. v. Audi of Am., Inc., 278 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. banc 2009) (statutory interpretation—plain language governs)
Peters v. Wady Indus., Inc., 489 S.W.3d 784 (Mo. banc 2016) (court may not add statutory language)
State v. Sisco, 458 S.W.3d 304 (Mo. banc 2015) (definition/explanation of nolle prosequi)