478 S.W.3d 411
Mo.2016Background
- In June 2013, then-16-year-old Jerri Smiley was charged in adult court with first-degree assault and armed criminal action (the latter carrying a mandatory 3-year minimum under §571.015.1) after juvenile division dismissed the delinquency petition and transferred prosecution.
- Smiley moved to dismiss the armed criminal action count, arguing the 3-year mandatory minimum is unconstitutional as applied to juveniles under the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions (relying on Roper, Graham, Miller).
- Before trial or any finding of guilt on the armed criminal action count, the trial court declared §571.015.1 unconstitutional as applied to all juvenile offenders and severed the statute’s mandatory-incarceration sentence provision for juveniles, but expressly declined to dismiss the count.
- The State filed an interlocutory appeal three days after the trial court’s ruling.
- The Missouri Supreme Court considered whether the State had a statutory right to appeal and whether the Court should treat the filing as an extraordinary writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Smiley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does the State have a statutory right to appeal the trial court’s interlocutory constitutional ruling? | Statutory appeal permitted under §547.200.2 because trial court’s ruling effectively dismissed or foreclosed application of the statute. | No statutory basis for interlocutory appeal; decision not within §547.200.1 categories and not a final judgment under §547.200.2. | Dismissed: State has no right to appeal; ruling was interlocutory and not a final judgment. |
| 2. Was the 3-year mandatory minimum unconstitutional as applied to juveniles? | (State urged merits in its appeal) | Smiley argued Miller/Graham/Roper require individualized consideration and prohibit mandatory juvenile incarceration. | Court did not reach merits; issue remains undecided on appeal due to lack of proper appellate posture. |
| 3. Was severance of the statute’s last sentence an appropriate remedy? | (State challenged remedy as improper) | Smiley sought dismissal of the armed criminal action count; trial court instead severed the mandatory-incarceration clause for juveniles. | Court declined to rule on remedy; noted Hart forbids courts from using severance to impose unauthorized sentencing and appellate review will be available after final disposition. |
| 4. Should the Court treat the State’s appeal as a petition for extraordinary relief (writ of prohibition)? | Asked Court to consider the appeal on the merits or as a writ to avoid review escaping appellate reach. | Smiley urged denial; relied on In re N.D.C. exceptions only apply rarely. | Denied: Not appropriate here because appellate review will be available after final judgment or by ordinary appeal/extraordinary writ if necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles categorically exempt from death penalty under Eighth Amendment)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment prohibits life without parole for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional; requires individualized sentencing consideration)
- State v. Burns, 994 S.W.2d 941 (Mo. banc 1999) (right to appeal is purely statutory; defining final judgment)
- Fannie Mae v. Truong, 361 S.W.3d 400 (Mo. banc 2012) (appeal without statutory sanction must be dismissed)
- In re N.D.C., 229 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. banc 2007) (rare conversion of unauthorized appeal into extraordinary writ to avoid loss of review)
- State v. Hart, 404 S.W.3d 232 (Mo. banc 2013) (courts may not use severance to impose a sentence not authorized by statute)