State v. Byers
396 S.W.3d 366
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Byers pleaded guilty to a class A misdemeanor of sexual misconduct in the first degree; imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on supervised probation for 24 months.
- After successful probation completion without incident, the case was closed.
- Over four years later, Byers moved under Rule 27.09(d) to withdraw his guilty plea.
- The trial court denied relief, relying on State ex rel. Kau-ble v. Hartenbach, and refused an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal, the court followed State v. Ortega and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ortega controls the outcome here | Byers argues Ortega forecloses relief after probation completion | State argues Ortega governs and supports affirmance | Affirmed based on Ortega |
| Whether interpreting Rule 29.07(d) to exclude withdrawal after SIS lasts would be unjust | Byers argues an unjust/result would ensue | State relies on Ortega and precedent | Affirmed; Ortega controls |
| Whether Byers’ equal-protection challenge is preserved for review | Byers raised an equal-protection claim on appeal | Not preserved in trial court; review not allowed | Denied; not preserved for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Kau-ble v. Hartenbach, 216 S.W.3d 158 (Mo. banc 2007) (trial court lacked authority after discharge of probation)
- State v. Ortega, 985 S.W.2d 373 (Mo.App. 1999) (discharged from probation; trial court lacks authority to amend judgment; affects Rule 29.07(d) relief)
- State v. Newlon, 216 S.W.3d 180 (Mo.App. 2007) (preservation of constitutional issues on appeal)
- State v. Miller, 172 S.W.3d 838 (Mo.App. 2005) (preservation principles for constitutional challenges)