Watson v. State
545 S.W.3d 909
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Watson pleaded guilty to stealing, was placed on probation, which was later revoked, and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for a class C felony.
- He filed a timely pro se Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion, and appointed counsel filed an amended motion arguing under State v. Bazell that his offense should have been a class A misdemeanor (max 1 year) and his five-year sentence exceeded the lawful maximum.
- The motion court denied the amended motion via an unsigned, handwritten docket entry that did not include findings of fact or conclusions of law.
- Watson filed a timely Rule 78.07(c) motion asking the court to amend the judgment to include findings and conclusions; that motion was also denied by an unsigned docket entry.
- Watson appealed, arguing the sentence was unlawful under Bazell and that the court erred in denying relief. The court affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unsigned docket entry denying the Rule 24.035 motion was a final judgment for appeal | Watson: the denial was final and appealable | State/Motion court: docket entry was final under post-conviction rules despite lacking judge's signature | The court held the unsigned docket entry was a final judgment for purposes of appeal (Mercer and Reber principles applied) |
| Whether failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law precludes appellate review | Watson: court failed Rule 24.035(j); he preserved error via Rule 78.07(c) motion | State: error must be raised on appeal to obtain relief; omission can be waived | The court held Watson did not raise the issue as a point on appeal, so he waived relief; no reversal for missing findings |
| Whether Bazell retroactively invalidates Watson's enhanced felony sentence in a Rule 24.035 motion | Watson: Bazell means his conviction should be a misdemeanor and five-year sentence exceeds statutory maximum | State: Bazell applies only prospectively (except direct appeals); therefore Bazell cannot be retroactively applied in post-conviction proceedings | The court held Bazell applies forward only (per Windeknecht/Fite); Watson's claim is substantively meritless and denied |
| Whether appellate court may supply omitted findings/conclusions to review claim | Watson: implies the court reached the wrong result requiring review | State: appellate court limited to reviewing trial court's findings; cannot imply findings | The court held it cannot imply findings; but could affirm on any legal ground supported by the record and did so (denying relief) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016) (held stealing could not be felony-enhanced based on value because value was not an element)
- Mercer v. State, 512 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. banc 2017) (post-conviction docket entry lacking findings and signature may be final but absence of findings prevents meaningful appellate review)
- State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer, 530 S.W.3d 500 (Mo. banc 2017) (Bazell applies prospectively only, except cases pending on direct appeal)
- State ex rel. Fite v. Johnson, 530 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. banc 2017) (distinguishing procedural cognizability from substantive retroactivity; Bazell claims were procedurally and substantively without merit in that context)
- State v. Reber, 976 S.W.2d 450 (Mo. banc 1998) (post-conviction orders sustaining/overruling motions are final for appeal and need not be denominated as a judgment)