State ex rel. Strauser v. Martinez
2014 Mo. LEXIS 1
| Mo. | 2014Background
- Amy Strauser and Sharon Edmonds each received five-year suspended sentences with restitution/costs payment conditions; the state filed motions to revoke for nonpayment.
- Trial court scheduled revocation hearings before each probation term expired but repeatedly continued the matters and conducted repeated "case reviews" rather than ruling.
- Strauser’s probation ran from June 4, 2007 to June 4, 2012; the court continued her revocation hearing 37 times before and after expiration.
- Edmonds’ probation ran from September 4, 2003 to September 4, 2008; the court continued her matter repeatedly, including many years after expiration.
- Both petitioners sought writs of prohibition arguing the court lacked statutory authority to hold revocation hearings after probation ended because it failed to make “every reasonable effort” to hold the hearings before expiration under § 559.036.8.
- The Missouri Supreme Court made the preliminary writs permanent, holding the trial court lacked authority to proceed after probation expired because it did not make every reasonable effort to conduct the hearings while probation was still in effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may conduct a probation revocation hearing after the probation term ends when it scheduled a hearing before expiration but repeatedly continued it | Strauser/Edmonds: court lost authority because it failed to make every reasonable effort to hold the hearing before probation expired | State: court retained authority because it manifested intent to hold the hearing and petitioners did not show readiness to proceed or prejudice | Held for petitioners: manifesting intent + notice is insufficient; court must make every reasonable effort to notify and hold the hearing before expiration under § 559.036.8; here court failed that requirement and lost authority |
| Whether defendant readiness to proceed is required to preserve post‑expiration revocation authority | Strauser/Edmonds: statute places duty on court, not on probationer to show readiness | State: defendants must show they were ready to proceed (relying on Petree) | Held for petitioners: statute imposes requirement on the court; defendant readiness is not a statutory precondition |
| Whether suspending probation indefinitely or repeatedly continuing hearings satisfies statutory duties | Petitioners: suspending without ruling does not meet § 559.036.8’s requirement that court make every reasonable effort | State: suspension and continued oversight preserve court authority (invoking Connett) | Held for petitioners: suspending without ruling does not permit indefinite continuation; sections construed together require the court to rule or meet § 559.036.8 conditions |
| Whether prejudice must be shown from delay to obtain relief | Petitioners: statute requires no showing of prejudice to prevail on lack-of-authority claim | State: prior cases require showing prejudice from unreasonable delay | Held for petitioners: § 559.036.8’s "every reasonable effort" test is distinct from prejudice; petitioners need not show prejudice to prove court exceeded authority |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Stimel v. White, 373 S.W.3d 481 (Mo. App.) (court’s authority to revoke ends when probation term ends)
- Stelljes v. State, 72 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. App.) (manifestation of intent and reasonable efforts required for post‑expiration revocation)
- State v. Roark, 877 S.W.2d 678 (Mo. App.) (scheduling a revocation hearing prior to expiration constitutes manifestation of intent)
- Petree v. State, 190 S.W.3d 641 (Mo. App.) (continuance at defendant’s request may justify short post‑term hearing)
- State ex rel. Whittenhall v. Conklin, 294 S.W.3d 106 (Mo. App.) (trial court exceeded authority by continuing revocation hearing years after probation expired)
- State ex rel. Breeding v. Seay, 244 S.W.3d 791 (Mo. App.) (failure to make reasonable effort when hearings continued into post‑probation period)
- State ex rel. Connett v. Dickerson, 833 S.W.2d 471 (Mo. App.) (distinguishable: court effectively extended probation by not imposing sentence)
- State ex rel. Mo. Pub. Defender Comm’n. v. Pratte, 298 S.W.3d 870 (Mo. banc) (standards for extraordinary writs)