State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer
530 S.W.3d 500
| Mo. | 2017Background
- Four petitioners (Windeknecht, Holman, Robinson, Adams) pleaded guilty to stealing charged under § 570.030.3(1) and received class C felony sentences (6–7 years) that are being served.
- At the time, § 570.030.1 defined stealing without including value as an element; § 570.030.3(1) imposed felony classification when value was $500–$25,000.
- The court of appeals in State v. Passley upheld felony enhancement, reasoning the legislature intended enhancement in the same statute.
- The Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Bazell later held the value element is not part of the stealing offense, so § 570.030.3 cannot enhance stealing to a felony; Bazell overruled Passley.
- Petitioners sought habeas relief arguing under Bazell their convictions should have been misdemeanors; the Missouri Supreme Court declined to apply Bazell retroactively to their cases and denied habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stealing can be enhanced to a felony under § 570.030.3 when the statutory definition lacks a value element | Petitioners: Bazell establishes value is not an element, so stealing is a class A misdemeanor and cannot be enhanced | State: Earlier decisions (Passley) treated value-based enhancement as applicable; enhancement was proper when charged | Court: Bazell (and Smith) control — value is not an element; § 570.030.3 cannot enhance stealing when the underlying offense lacks a value element |
| Whether Bazell should be applied retroactively to cases already final (here, to grant habeas relief) | Petitioners: Bazell requires reclassification and resentencing; sentences exceed statutory maximums | State: Courts may choose prospective application; prior interpretations that were relied on at sentencing should not be disturbed retroactively | Court: Bazell applies only prospectively (and to cases pending on direct appeal); habeas relief denied for these final cases |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016) (holding value is not an element of stealing and § 570.030.3 cannot be used to enhance stealing to a felony)
- State v. Smith, 522 S.W.3d 221 (Mo. banc 2017) (reaffirming Bazell and explaining the entire subsection 570.030.3 depends on a value-element in the underlying offense)
- State v. Passley, 389 S.W.3d 180 (Mo. App. 2012) (earlier court of appeals decision upholding felony enhancement under § 570.030.3)
- Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21 (1973) (state supreme courts may limit retroactivity of changed statutory interpretations)
- State v. Nunley, 341 S.W.3d 611 (Mo. banc 2011) (discussing state control over adherence to precedent and retroactivity)