This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Opinion
Supreme Court of Missouri

Case Style:  Ronald Huffman, Appellant v. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Respondent.

Case Number:  SC84539

Handdown Date:  03/04/2003

Appeal From:  Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Byron L. Kinder

Counsel for Appellant:  Ronald Huffman, Pro Se

Counsel for Respondent:  Michael J. Spillane and Gregory L. Barnes

Opinion Summary:  

Ronald Huffman pled guilty to manufacturing a controlled substance and possessing a controlled substance and was sentenced under section 217.362, RSMo, to participation in a long-term substance abuse treatment program and a term of incarceration. He was discharged from the treatment program because of conduct violations, which lifted the suspension of his seven-year prison term for manufacturing and 14-year prison term for possession. Huffman then sought declaratory judgment, which the court denied. He appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Court en banc holds: The statute is not invalid or unconstitutionally vague. Section 217.362.4 unambiguously provides that the sentence will be executed if the defendant fails to complete the treatment program.   

Citation:  

Opinion Author:  PER CURIAM

Opinion Vote:  AFFIRMED.  All concur.

Opinion:

Ronald Huffman pleaded guilty to manufacturing a controlled substance and possessing a controlled substance.  He was sentenced pursuant to section 217.362.(FN1) That section permits a court to sentence a defendant to (1) participation in an intensive long-term substance abuse treatment program and (2) a term of incarceration.  Section 217.362.2.  While in the treatment program, the execution of the term of incarceration is suspended.  Id.
Huffman received conduct violations resulting in his discharge from the treatment program.  His term of incarceration, seven years for manufacturing and 14 years for possession, was no longer suspended.  He filed this declaratory judgment action.  He alleged that (1) he should be able to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Rule 29.07(d) rather than by seeking habeas corpus relief and (2) section 217.362 is invalid because unconstitutionally vague and in violation of the principle of separation of powers.  The circuit court found that neither contention is correct.  Because of the constitutional claim, this Court has jurisdiction.  Mo. Const. article V, section 3.
On appeal, Huffman does not pursue his claim concerning Rule 29.07(d).  As to the constitutional claim, the statute unambiguously provides that the sentence will be executed if the defendant fails to complete the treatment program.  Section 217.362.4.  Only the judiciary, through the trial court, is involved in imposing a sentence having this consequence.  
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Footnote:
FN1.	All statutory references at to RSMo 2000.

Separate Opinion:

None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.