STATE EX REL. ANTHONY W. BOWMAN, Relator,
THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY W. INMAN, Respondent.
PROCEEDING IN PROHIBITION
C. WILSON, JUDGE.
Bowman seeks a writ of prohibition barring the circuit court
from adding restitution to the conditions of his probation.
He challenges the validity of this modification on the
grounds that the amount of restitution ordered by the circuit
court is improper under section 559.105. This Court issued a preliminary writ of
prohibition and now makes that writ permanent.
2014, the victim in this case ("CM") had numerous
items of personal property stolen from her apartment. Police
were notified that Bowman, a fellow tenant in CM's
apartment complex, was in possession of some of the stolen
items. The police searched Bowman's residence and
recovered several of the stolen items. Those items were
returned to CM without damage. There was no other evidence
implicating Bowman in the theft from CM's apartment or
connecting him with any of the stolen items.
October 23, 2014, Bowman was charged with one count of felony
receiving stolen property under section 570.080, RSMo Supp.
2011. The only items identified in this charge were those
items recovered from Bowman's apartment and returned to
CM. The state lowered Bowman's charge to a class A
misdemeanor, and Bowman pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor
count of receiving stolen property. Bowman was given a
suspended imposition of sentence pending two years of
court-supervised probation. Restitution originally was not a
condition of this probation.
January 29, 2016, the state filed a motion to modify
Bowman's probation by adding a condition of restitution.
The state alleged that Bowman should be made to pay $4, 064
to CM to compensate her for the items that were stolen from
her apartment but not recovered from Bowman. At a hearing on the state's motion, CM
testified that it would cost her $4, 064 to replace the
unrecovered items. No evidence was offered connecting Bowman
to those items. Instead, the evidence again showed that the
only items belonging to CM that Bowman possessed were those
seized from his apartment and returned to CM. The trial court
granted the state's motion and modified the terms of
Bowman's probation to add a condition that he pay the
requested restitution (and administration fee) by making
monthly payments of $240.
sought of writ of prohibition in the court of appeals,
claiming the trial court lacked authority to add the
restitution condition because section 559.105.1 only
authorizes restitution for losses connected to the offense
for which he was charged, i.e., possession of stolen
property. Because all of the property he was charged with
receiving was recovered by the police and returned to CM,
Bowman claims the trial court lacked authority to order
restitution for the remaining items., i.e., those items that
were stolen from - but not returned to - CM. The court of
appeals issued a preliminary writ but quashed the writ
without opinion. Bowman now petitions this Court for the same
relief on the same grounds. See Rules 84.22(b),
84.24(n), and 97.03.
Court has authority to "issue and determine original
remedial writs." Mo. Const. art. V, § 4.1. The writ
of prohibition is available when a trial court acts beyond
its authority. State ex rel. Mo. Pub. Defender Comm'n
v. Waters, 370 S.W.3d 592, 603 (Mo. banc 2012).
seeks a writ of prohibition barring the trial court from
adding a condition to his probation requiring him to pay $4,
064 as restitution to CM for the property stolen from her
apartment but not recovered from Bowman. Because Bowman was
not charged with - and did not plead guilty to - receiving
any of the property stolen from CM other than those items
that were returned to CM, and because the state offered no
other evidence connecting Bowman to those
stolen-but-unrecovered items, Bowman contends the trial court
lacked authority under section 559.105.1 to require the
restitution it did. This Court agrees.
559.021 and 559.100, RSMo Supp. 2014, provide trial courts
with broad discretion to determine the conditions of
probation, including conditions that the defendant pay
restitution to the crime victims. Section 559.100 provides
that the trial court "shall determine any conditions of
probation or parole for the defendant that it deems
necessary." To the same effect, section 559.021
authorizes a trial court to impose any conditions it
determines are "reasonably necessary to ensure that the
defendant will not again violate the law, " including
conditions "the court believes will serve to compensate
the victim …." On the subject of restitution,
however, section 559.105.1 limits these broad grants of
authority by providing: "Any person who has been found
guilty of or has pled guilty to an offense may be ordered by
the court to make restitution to the victim for the
victim's losses due to such offense."
is no doubt that section 559.105.1 limits the broad authority
granted under sections 559.021 and 559.100. Not only must
statutes on the same subject be read together, Lane v.
Lensmeyer, 158 S.W.3d 218, 226 (Mo. banc 2005), but it
would be absurd to conclude the General Assembly intended to
impose a causation requirement for restitution under section
559.105.1, while allowing for restitution unrestrained by
"but for" causation under sections 559.021 and
559.100. Instead, this Court concludes the General Assembly
intended sections 559.021 and 559.100 to authorize trial
courts to require restitution as a condition of probation but
intended also that any exercise of that authority would
comply with the causation requirement imposed by section
559.105.1, i.e., that restitution only be required for losses
"due to" the offense for which the defendant has
been found (or pleaded) guilty.
interpreting section 550.105.1, as with any statute, this
Court's "primary goal is to give effect to
legislative intent as reflected in the plain language of the
statute." Stiers v. Dir. of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d
611, 615 (Mo. banc 2016). The plain language of section
559.105.1 limits the authority of a trial court to require
restitution as a condition of probation by restricting
restitution only to "the victim's losses due to such
offense." The plain and unambiguous meaning of ...