Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Scheider v. State

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division

February 11, 2019

WILLIAM PAUL SCHEIDER, IV, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARIES COUNTY Honorable John D. Beger, Judge

          DANIEL E. SCOTT, J.

         This appeal arises from and challenges a frequent plea-bargain scenario. Appellant (Movant), a prior offender, potentially faced multiple theft-related felonies. He reviewed the evidence with his attorney, to whom he admitted guilt, saying he wanted to "make it right" and "pay it all back," but "didn't want to go to prison."

         A plea agreement was made for Movant to pay $575 total restitution and plead guilty to one felony, with the state recommending probation and agreeing not to file the other charges. At the plea hearing, the prosecutor outlined the agreement, including the $575 restitution, a figure Movant acknowledged in writing in his plea petition.

         The court accepted the plea and sentenced Movant accordingly. After Movant violated probation and was sent to prison, he sought Rule 24.035 PCR relief, claiming as relevant here that:

1. His restitution obligation should be "struck" because it included crimes "for which he was not charged and did not plead guilty to," citing § 559.105 and State ex rel. Bowman v. Inman, 516 S.W.3d 367 (Mo. banc 2017); and
2. Plea counsel was ineffective for not raising such objection or timely informing Movant of the restitution amount, and had counsel done the latter, Movant would have gone to trial and not pleaded guilty.[1]

         The motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. This appeal follows.

         PCR Claim 1

         We are skeptical that Movant's request to strike the restitution order is cognizable under Rule 24.035, but need not expound on those doubts because Bowman and § 559.105 do not support relief.

         The victim in Bowman had substantial property stolen. Police found several items in Bowman's apartment. He pled guilty to and received probation for misdemeanor receiving stolen property, with that charge identifying only the items recovered from Bowman's apartment and returned to the victim. No restitution was ordered. Months later, the state convinced the court to add a $4, 064 restitution condition, representing all of the victim's stolen property, without any evidence linking Bowman to those items.

         Bowman sought writ relief, "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., [misdemeanor] possession of stolen property." 516 S.W.3d at 368. Our supreme court agreed, construing § 559.105 restitution as permissible only "for losses 'due to' the offense for which the defendant has been found (or pleaded) guilty." Id. at 369.

         This case differs from Bowman, where the plea court, months after sentencing, effectively changed the deal to which Bowman had agreed. Here, Movant expressly agreed to $575 restitution as part of his deal and got the full benefit of his bargain, which the court and the state honored exactly as Movant petitioned for and requested.

         Ordering restitution for uncharged crimes did not violate § 559.105 here, but even if it did, Movant cannot complain of self-invited error. Johnson v. State, 477 S.W.3d 2, 8 (Mo.App. 2015)(movant waived double-jeopardy claim by knowingly and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.