State v. JOORDENS
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 1022
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Joordens pled guilty to Counts I and II on Oct 8, 2009 and to Counts V and VI on Jan 6, 2010; Count IV was dismissed and Count III was tried with acquittal.
- The circuit court sentenced Joordens to consecutive terms: seven years on Count I, seven years on Count II, six years on Count V, and six years on Count VI.
- On Jan 12, 2010, Joordens moved to reconsider requesting probation under Missouri law.
- On Mar 4, 2010, the court amended the judgment, ordering concurrent sentences, reducing incarceration time from 26 to 7 years.
- On Mar 23, 2010, the court vacated the amended judgment and reinstated the Jan 6, 2010 judgment with consecutive sentences.
- The State did not challenge the circuit court’s authority; Joordens appealed contending the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to amend or vacate the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the circuit court lack jurisdiction to amend the judgment to run concurrently? | Joordens argues court exceeded authority by amending after final judgment. | State contends court acted within its discretion to modify under law. | Yes; amendments after final judgment were invalid; remand to vacate post-judgment orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. banc 1994) (final judgment occurs when a sentence is entered)
- City of Greenwood v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 311 S.W.3d 258 (Mo.App.2010) (trial court exhausts jurisdiction after judgment; appellate review begins)
- Simmons v. White, 866 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. banc 1993) (trial court has exhausted jurisdiction post-judgment unless statute allows otherwise)
- State ex rel. Wagner v. Ruddy, 582 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. banc 1979) (limitations on trial court’s post-judgment actions)
- State ex rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. banc 2006) (jurisdictional limits after final judgment)
- In re Estate of Shaw, 256 S.W.3d 72 (Mo. banc 2008) (nunc pro tunc corrections have limits; cannot alter sentence terms)
- State ex rel. Poucher v. Vincent, 258 S.W.3d 62 (Mo. banc 2008) (nunc pro tunc corrections cannot change concurrent vs. consecutive sentencing)