Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MISSISSIPPI COUNTY Honorable David
A. Dolan, Judge
Bates, J., Scott, J., and Sheffield, J.
charged with multiple felonies, Tamara Tidwell agreed to
plead guilty to one felony count and receive a suspended
imposition of sentence and probation, with other charges and
cases to be dismissed, all of which occurred in November
March 2014, the court revoked Tidwell's probation,
sentenced her to five years in prison concurrent with another
sentence and subject to a 120-day callback per §
559.115, and made a docket entry "Costs Ordered to
State." The county certified a bill to the state
including $920.26 for incarcerating Tidwell during 2010 and
2014, the court ordered Tidwell released from prison and
placed her on five years' probation. A condition of
probation was that Tidwell "should pay any outstanding
court costs, Crime Victims Compensation Fund, intervention
fees and restitution balances, as applicable." Related
paperwork showed the court costs claimed as $920.26,
mirroring the county's March 2014 cost bill to the state.
years later, having made only one $60 payment, Tidwell filed
a "Motion to Retax Costs," asserting that she did
not owe jail costs taxed to the state in 2014 due to her
indigent status. After a hearing, the court denied the motion
on August 17, 2018.
days later, but over four years after she was sentenced,
Tidwell filed notice of appeal. After we transferred the case
to our supreme court pursuant to Rule 83.02, the supreme
court retransferred the case for reconsideration in light of
State v. Richey, No. SC97604 (Mo. banc March 19,
recently did in State v. Banderman, No. SD35501 (Mo.
App. S.D. Apr. 1, 2019), we find that Richey
dictates our outcome. Respondent agrees and asks us to
reverse and remand to retax costs by removing the jail-board
bill from Tidwell's fee report, which is the appropriate
Richey disposition and renders an extended opinion
unnecessary. We reverse the circuit court's ruling and
remand with instructions to retax costs in Case No.
10MI-CR00741-01 by removing the jail-board bill liability
from Tidwell's fee report.
CONCURRING IN RESULT
E. SCOTT, J.
concur in the result. Yet Richey leaves unclear how
that issue could be appealed when case law generally holds
otherwise for post-criminal-judgment rulings as we noted in
transferring this case and as I detailed in my
Banderman concurrence. I won't repeat what those
opinions said, or beat a dead horse by continuing to write
separately on this, but I would treat such
"appeals" as writ applications pending supreme
court guidance as I indicated in