Taylor v. State
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1049
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Taylor pled guilty in 2006 to endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, a class D felony; the State stayed imposition of sentence and placed him on five years of probation with conditions including shock detention.
- The trial court later imposed additional probation conditions: evaluation/treatment and sex offender registration, with the first condition later removed but the second remained.
- Taylor challenged probation conditions in a declaratory relief action; the trial court granted summary judgment in his favor and the Missouri Supreme Court later upheld removal of sex offender registration information.
- During probation, Taylor admitted a probation violation in 2008 and a probation revocation hearing occurred in December 2010.
- Following revocation proceedings, the court sentenced Taylor to seven years, later amended to four years (maximum for a class D felony) after a notice from the State regarding the offense classification.
- Taylor filed a Rule 24.035 motion in June 2011 alleging retaliatory sentencing for exercising rights to appeal the probation conditions; the motion court denied without an evidentiary hearing; the Motion Court’s later denial of a motion to vacate was also affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor’s Rule 24.035 claim is cognizable. | Taylor argues retaliatory sentencing is cognizable under Rule 24.035. | State agrees cognizable but argues denial was proper on record. | Cognizable; but no relief here due to record refuting claim. |
| Whether Taylor was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. | Taylor entitled to hearing to prove retaliatory intent. | Record shows no determinative retaliatory factor. | Not entitled to an evidentiary hearing; record refutes claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wright, 998 S.W.2d 78 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (retaliation requires a determinative factor in sentencing)
- Thurston v. State, 791 S.W.2d 893 (Mo.App. E.D.1990) (retaliation can require resentencing when court relied on improper motive)
- Vickers v. State, 17 S.W.3d 632 (Mo.App. S.D.2000) (retaliatory sentencing claims analyzed in Rule 24.035 post-conviction context)
- Lindsey v. State, 996 S.W.2d 577 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (generalized comments not determinative if proper factors exist)
- Palmer v. State, 193 S.W.3d 854 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (retaliation not determinative where other factors support sentence)
- Collins v. State, 290 S.W.3d 736 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (retaliation claims evaluated on record without necessarily an evidentiary hearing)
- Morrow v. State, 21 S.W.3d 819 (Mo. banc 2000) (evidentiary hearing requires pleaded facts, not mere conclusions)
- Glaviano v. State, 298 S.W.3d 112 (Mo.App. W.D.2009) (direct appeal context; evidentiary hearing may be bypassed)
- Dickerson v. State, 269 S.W.3d 889 (Mo. banc 2008) (standard for refuting movant's claims in record)