574 S.W.3d 761
Mo.2019Background
- In Dec. 2010 Griffith pleaded guilty to felony distribution of a controlled substance; the court suspended imposition and placed him on five years probation.
- Probation revoked Oct. 2011; court sentenced him to five years and ordered a 120‑day institutional treatment program, retaining jurisdiction for that period. After completion (Feb. 2012) the court placed Griffith on a second five‑year probation term.
- In Feb. 2013 the court revoked that probation and (erroneously) placed Griffith on a third five‑year term of probation.
- Probation revoked again Nov. 2014; the court executed a five‑year prison sentence.
- Griffith filed habeas corpus (Mar. 2017) alleging the court lacked statutory authority to impose a third term of probation and thus to later execute his sentence; lower courts denied relief.
- After briefing and argument Griffith was released and discharged from parole (Feb. 2019); the Missouri Supreme Court exercised discretion to decide the merits notwithstanding mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is moot and should be dismissed | Griffith argued the Court should decide merits despite his release because the case became moot after submission and raises recurring public‑interest issues | Respondents argued release renders the controversy moot and should be dismissed | Court exercised discretion under the post‑submission mootness exception and reached the merits (majority); dissent would have dismissed as moot |
| Whether the circuit court had statutory authority to impose a third term of probation after revoking a second term | Griffith argued the court exceeded statutory authority; a third term is unauthorized so subsequent execution of sentence was improper | Respondents argued the court retained authority over the probationary period and its actions were valid | Court held imposing a third term of probation was erroneous/void: statute permits only one new term of probation after revocation; after a second‑term revocation the court could not impose a third term and instead could extend, continue, or execute the sentence |
| Appropriate remedy when a court imposes an unauthorized third term of probation | Griffith sought immediate release and discharge from probation | Respondents opposed relief sought | Court held the correct remedy is to remand to the point of error (Feb. 2013) for the trial court to determine the proper disposition considering intervening conduct and time served; because Griffith has been released and discharged, he should not be returned to custody; similar defendants may seek relief in circuit court without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Peters‑Baker v. Round, 561 S.W.3d 380 (Mo. banc 2018) (mootness exceptions and discretionary review)
- State ex rel. Fleming v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 515 S.W.3d 224 (Mo. banc 2017) (habeas review of probation revocation)
- State ex rel. Strauser v. Martinez, 416 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2014) (statutory limits on probation duration and revocation)
- State ex rel. Weaver v. Martinez, 481 S.W.3d 127 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (court may impose only one new term of probation; cannot impose third term)
- State ex rel. Moyer v. Calhoun, 22 S.W.3d 250 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (same principle limiting successive probation terms)
- State ex rel. Carr v. Wallace, 527 S.W.3d 55 (Mo. banc 2017) (habeas requires proof of unlawful restraint)
- State ex rel. Clemons v. Larkins, 475 S.W.3d 60 (Mo. banc 2015) (standards for habeas relief)