STATE EX REL. VALENTINE v. Orr
2012 Mo. LEXIS 108
| Mo. | 2012Background
- Valentine pled guilty to child molestation in the first degree and three counts of statutory sodomy; plea required placement in the SOAU within the DOC.
- The circuit court retained jurisdiction for 120 days to conduct an assessment and explained it could deny probation despite a favorable assessment.
- SOAU assessment (Dec 13, 2011) recommended probation based on amenability to treatment and community release.
- Valentine was sentenced Aug 25, 2011, with orders that the SOAU be used and that he may be released on probation if appropriate.
- By Jan 19, 2012, the circuit court held a hearing on probation and found abuse of discretion; then ordered execution of sentences.
- Valentine filed mandamus petitions; the courts determined the circuit court exceeded statutory time limits under 559.115.3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is SOAU a 120-day program under 559.115.3? | Valentine: SOAU lasts 120 days and includes treatment. | State: SOAU is a 120-day program under 559.115.3. | SOAU is a 120-day program with treatment component during assessment. |
| Which subsection applies to Valentine’s sentencing, 2 or 3? | Valentine argues §559.115.3 applies due to 120-day program and DOC recommendation. | State argues §559.115.2 applies because court retained discretion and no mandated program. | Court applied §559.115.3; DOC recommendation treated as part of a 120-day program. |
| Was the hearing to deny probation timely under §559.115.3? | Valentine asserts timely hearing within 90–120 days was required after completion. | State contends the court could deny only if abuse of discretion; timing mattered. | Hearing was untimely; 120-day period expired before the January 19, 2012 hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. banc 2006) (mandamus when court abuses discretion after exhaustion of jurisdiction)
- State v. Graham, 204 S.W.3d 655 (Mo. banc 2006) (statutory interpretation for plain meaning)
- State v. Rowe, 63 S.W.3d 647 (Mo. banc 2002) (plain meaning rule confirmation)
- State ex rel. City of Jennings v. Riley, 236 S.W.3d 630 (Mo. banc 2007) (remedial writs and abuse of discretion standard)