Wilhite v. State, 339 S.W.3d 573

Wilhite pleaded guilty to three counts of class B child molestation in the first degree on Nov 14, 2007; two counts of statutory sodomy were dismissed per plea.
The plea agreement provided for twelve-year sentences on the remaining counts, to run concurrently, and a sentencing assessment to determine SOAU eligibility under §559.115.
SAR showed Wilhite qualified for §559.115, meaning he would be assessed by SOAU and potentially released on probation after assessment.
At sentencing, the court ruled it would be an abuse of discretion to grant probation and ordered the twelve-year sentences to be executed.
Wilhite moved under Rule 24.035 alleging due process violation because he was not physically placed in the SOAU facility.
At the evidentiary hearing, SOAU personnel traveled to Bonne Terre to administer the required assessments; results were generally favorable to Wilhite.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did non-placement in SOAU breach the plea agreement?	Wilhite argues breach due to not being placed in Farmington SOAU.	State contends full SOAU assessment occurred despite different location.	No breach; full assessment conducted, no prejudice from location.

Reed v. State, 114 S.W.3d 871 (Mo.App. W.D. 2003) (plea agreement binds both sides; breach returns to pre-bargain status)
State v. Bryan, 335 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App. S.D. 2010) (distinguishes Reed; denial of entry into SOAU is not always breach)
Harper v. State, 256 S.W.3d 220 (Mo.App. W.D. 2008) (standard for Rule 24.035 review; credibility call)
Day v. State, 143 S.W.3d 690 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004) (clear-error standard for motion court findings)
Proctor v. State, 809 S.W.2d 32 (Mo.App. W.D. 1991) (credibility and factual findings deferential to motion court)