Valley v. State
563 S.W.3d 159
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Movant James A. Valley pled guilty on August 18, 2016 to felony stealing (valued at least $500) pursuant to a plea agreement; prosecutor recommended and court imposed five years' imprisonment.
- Movant did not appeal his plea or sentence directly; under existing precedent, direct appeal would have been limited and challenges to sentence legality would be via Rule 24.035.
- Shortly after sentencing, the Missouri Supreme Court issued Bazell interpreting pre-2017 law to treat stealing (as charged) as a class A misdemeanor because value was not an element, which would carry a one-year maximum.
- Movant timely filed a pro se Rule 24.035 motion and, after counsel was appointed and an extension, filed an amended motion seeking relief based on Bazell; he waived an evidentiary hearing and requested judgment on the pleadings.
- The motion court denied relief; Movant appealed, arguing his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum given Bazell and thus was unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Movant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Movant may challenge his sentence under Rule 24.035 based on Bazell | Bazell reclassified the offense as a class A misdemeanor, so Movant's five-year sentence exceeded the statutory maximum and is unlawful | Bazell was applied prospectively; it does not render sentences final before Bazell unlawful via post-conviction relief | Denied: Bazell applies prospectively (except to cases pending on direct appeal); Rule 24.035 relief not available on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hopkins, 432 S.W.3d 208 (Mo. App. W.D.) (limits of direct appeal after plea)
- State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc) (interpreting stealing under pre-2017 law as misdemeanor)
- Abrams v. State, 550 S.W.3d 557 (Mo. App. S.D.) (rejecting Bazell-based post-conviction challenge)
- Watson v. State, 545 S.W.3d 909 (Mo. App. W.D.) (rejecting similar Bazell argument in post-conviction context)
- Bosworth v. State, 559 S.W.3d 5 (Mo. App. E.D.) (rejecting same claim)
- State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer, 530 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. banc) (Bazell holding applies prospectively)
- State ex rel. Zahnd v. Van Amburg, 533 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. banc) (Bazell and related holdings apply prospectively and to direct appeals)
- State ex rel. Fite v. Johnson, 530 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. banc) (prospective application of Bazell)
- State v. Smith, 522 S.W.3d 221 (Mo. banc) (related holdings on appellate relief)