State of Missouri, ex rel., Terry Upshaw, Relator v. Hon. Troy Cardona ( 2020 )

In the Missouri Court of Appeals
Eastern District
Writ Division Two
STATE OF MISSOURI, ex rel., ) ED108935
TERRY UPSHAW, )
)
Relator, )
) Writ of Mandamus
v. ) Circuit Court of Jefferson County
) Cause Nos. 15JE-CR02881;
HON. TROY A. CARDONA, ) 17JE-CR02214
)
Respondent. ) Filed: August 4, 2020
Introduction
Terry Upshaw (Relator) seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the Honorable Troy
A. Cardona (Respondent) to release Relator from the Missouri Department of Corrections
and place him on probation pursuant to Section 217.362 1 in light of Relator’s successful
completion of the long-term substance abuse treatment program outlined therein.
Respondent has filed suggestions in opposition, and the State has filed suggestions in
support. In the interest of justice as permitted by Rule 84.24(e) and (i), this Court dispenses
with issuance of a preliminary order, answer, further briefing, and oral argument, and issues
a peremptory writ of mandamus.
Background
1
All statutory references are to RSMo. Cum. Supp. 2018 unless otherwise indicated.
On July 18, 2018, Relator pled guilty to one count of driving while intoxicated
(DWI) and one count of resisting arrest for a felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the
State, Respondent sentenced Relator as a chronic DWI offender to concurrent terms of
fifteen years for DWI and four years for resisting arrest. Respondent also sentenced Relator
pursuant to Section 217.362, which allows a nonviolent offender to be released on
probation upon successful completion of a long-term substance abuse treatment program
(long-term program), during which time the execution of the offender’s sentence is
suspended.
Relator entered the long-term treatment program on May 7, 2019. The Missouri
Department of Corrections Board of Probation and Parole (Board) submitted its Court
Report Investigation (Report) regarding Relator’s participation in and completion of the
long-term program, which noted the following:
[Relator] has demonstrated the ability to self[-]correct his
behaviors when addressed. He received no violations or
interventions while in treatment. His attitude and participation
are appropriate for a successful completion of the program. . . .
[He c]ompleted all treatment objectives and upheld all
expectations of treatment[.]
The Board recommended a release date of May 8, 2020.
On March 18, 2020, Respondent denied Relator’s release and ordered execution of
Relator’s sentences “based upon [two] conduct violations as listed in the [Board’s]
report[.]” In an order responding to a letter from Relator requesting reconsideration,
Respondent stated that the “conduct violations were after [the] court sentenced [Relator]
to long term and before he entered the program[,] but the violations included in the report
convince the court [Relator] is not amenable to probation[.]”
2
Relator subsequently filed the present application for writ of mandamus. In the interest of
justice as permitted by Rule 84.24(e) and (i), we dispense with issuance of a preliminary
order, answer, further briefing, and oral argument, and issue a peremptory writ of
mandamus.
Standard of Review
“Mandamus is a discretionary writ that is appropriate when a court has exceeded
its jurisdiction or authority, and where no remedy exists through appeal.” 2 State ex rel.
Cullen v. Cardona, 568 S.W.3d 492, 494 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019) (quoting State ex rel. Kizer
v. Mennemeyer, 421 S.W.3d 558, 559 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014)). While mandamus does not
ordinarily lie to control a lower court’s exercise of discretion, if the court’s action is
“incorrect as a matter of law, then [it] has abused any discretion [it] may have had, and
mandamus is appropriate.” Id. (quoting State ex re. Valentine v. Orr, 366 S.W.3d 534, 538
(Mo. banc 2012)) (internal quotations omitted). We must defer to the lower court’s factual
findings where they are supported by competent and substantial evidence, but we review
legal questions de novo. Id.
Discussion
Relator argues Respondent’s decision to deny him probation was unsupported by
competent evidence in the record. The State of Missouri, by and through the prosecuting
attorney of Jefferson County, also filed a response in the present action, conceding its
agreement with Relator “that the relief sought by Relator should be granted,” and
2
Respondent argues that Relator has another means of appeal through his pending motion for post-conviction
relief, which alleges that Respondent erred in denying him probation. However, denial of probation is not a
cognizable claim in a motion for post-conviction relief or on direct appeal. Prewitt v. State, 191 S.W.3d 709,
711 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (citing State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994); Green v. State,
494 S.W.2d 356, 357 (Mo. banc 1973)). Rather, “[t]he procedural means for challenging the denial of
probation is through a writ of mandamus.” Cullen, 568 S.W. at 494.
3
requesting “an Order that this Court finds just and reasonable.” Relator seeks release on
probation pursuant to Section 217.362. We agree.
Section 217.362.3 states the following:
Upon successful completion of the program, the [Board] shall
advise the sentencing court of an offender’s probationary release
date . . . . If the court determines that probation is not appropriate
the court may order the execution of the offender’s sentence.
Thus, Section 217.362.3 leaves the final decision regarding a particular offender’s release
to the discretion of the trial court. While the trial court is no longer required by Section
217.362 to conduct a hearing on this issue, 3 the trial court’s decision must be supported by
competent evidence. Cullen, 568 S.W.3d at 495 (citing State ex rel. Salm v. Mennemeyer,
423 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014)).
Here, Respondent argues that Relator’s two conduct violations prior to entering the
long-term program constitute sufficient evidence that probation is not appropriate for
Relator. Respondent did not hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Relator’s conduct
violations. 4 The information in the record is that Relator received one violation on March
17, 2018 for failure to comply with an order, and one on September 11, 2018 for conduct
that interferes with operations. For each violation, Relator received a “living area
3
Prior to 2003, Section 217.362.3 directed the sentencing court to “hold a hearing to make a determination
as to the fitness of the offender to be placed on probation. The court shall follow the recommendation of the
board unless the court makes a determination that such a placement would be an abuse of discretion.” Section
217.362.3, RSMo. 2000.
4
Respondent states he is ready to grant an evidentiary hearing on Relator’s motion for post-conviction relief,
which has been continued pending the outcome of the present mandamus proceeding, and that he may grant
Relator relief after such hearing. However, as noted, supra, Relator’s claim is not cognizable in a post-
conviction proceeding. Further, Relator does not have the burden to show that probation is appropriate in a
post-conviction proceeding. Rather, upon recommendation for probation by the Board, Section 217.362
places the onus on trial courts to base their discretionary decisions that probation is not appropriate on
substantial evidence on the record.
4
restriction.” Both violations occurred prior to Relator’s entry into the long-term program
on May 7, 2019.
We find this evidence insufficient to support Respondent’s conclusion that Relator
would not be amenable to probation. While Relator’s conduct while awaiting entry into
the long-term program is certainly relevant to the court’s determination of whether
probation would be appropriate, the evidence in the record of Relator’s conduct that led to
these violations and its impact on his potential success on probation is nonexistent.
Moreover, the Board’s Report highlighted the facts that Relator had received no conduct
violations during the pendency of the long-term program, showed an ability to self-correct
behaviors when addressed, and had met all objectives and expectations of the long-term
program.
As it stands, the evidence relied on by Respondent consists solely of the Report’s
line-item recitation, with no further description, of two seemingly minor violations taking
place well before Relator began the long-term program. 5 Notably, the Board did not
consider these violations significant enough to affect its recommendation that Relator be
placed on probation in light of his incident-free and successful completion of the long-term
program. The Report’s summary notation of these two pre-program, minor conduct
5
A trial court’s concerns about conduct violations listed in an offender’s Report would be more appropriately
addressed at an evidentiary hearing. While we reiterate Section 217.362 does not explicitly require an
evidentiary hearing; where a Report does not clearly delineate facts upon which the trial court can rely to
find probation inappropriate, the trial court must either grant probation or hold a hearing. See State ex rel.
Salm v. Mennemeyer, 423 S.W.3d 319, 321 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (noting that upon successful completion
of long-term program, Section 217.362.3 requires courts to either release offender on probation or determine
that probation is inappropriate). Though we doubt that a hearing in the present case regarding two pre-
program, minor conduct violations would produce evidence showing that probation was inappropriate for
Relator, it was within the trial court’s discretion to hold one. Cf. State ex rel. Beggs v. Dormire, 91 S.W.3d
605, 607 (Mo. banc 2002) (holding that pre-sentence conduct alone does not make an offender unfit for
probation); Cullen, 568 S.W.3d at 495 (noting that even evidence of one minor conduct violation during
long-term program was insufficient to support trial court’s denial of probation upon successful completion
of program).
5
violations alone does not support Respondent’s conclusion under the circumstances here
that probation is not appropriate for Relator.
Conclusion
We find that Respondent’s denial of probation upon Relator’s successful
completion of the long-term program was unsupported by competent evidence. In the
interest of justice as permitted by Rule 84.24(e) and (i), a peremptory writ of mandamus is
ordered to issue directing Respondent to enter an order placing Relator on probation,
pursuant to Section 217.362.
_________________________________
Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Presiding Judge
Robin Ransom, J., and
Angela T. Quigless, J., concur.
6