Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MARIES COUNTY Honorable John D.
E. SCOTT, J.
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."
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.
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
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.
motion court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. This
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...