Note: Today’s first three cases present similar questions for this Court: whether the circuit courts exceeded their jurisdiction in granting the defendants relief on their claims under this Court’s August 2016 decision in State v. Bazell, which held certain statutory provisions do not apply to enhance misdemeanor stealing to felony stealing because “stealing” is not defined to include, as an element of the offense, the value of property or services appropriated. Related issues in these cases involve whether the defendants wishing to challenge their sentences are restricted to the postconviction relief timelines and procedures described in Rules 29.15 and 24.035; whether they may bring claims for relief under Rules 29.07(d) or 29.12(b); and, if so, whether such relief permits circuit courts to amend charges, reduce sentences and enter new judgments accordingly. Each case is described more fully below.

Robby Ledford pleaded guilty to felony stealing for stealing a bracelet worth more than $500. The circuit court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Ledford on probation for five years. After multiple reports of probation violations, the circuit court revoked probation and sentenced Ledford to five years in prison. He was delivered to the department of corrections in November 2015. In February 2017, Ledford moved to withdraw his guilty plea under Rule 29.07(d), alleging his sentence was unlawful under State v. Bazell and asking the circuit court to correct its judgment accordingly to prevent a manifest injustice. The prosecutor argued the court had no jurisdiction to decide the motion because Ledford filed it more than 180 days after he was delivered to the department of corrections. In April 2017, the circuit court granted the motion, amended the charge against Ledford to misdemeanor stealing, reduced his sentence and entered a new judgment accordingly. The prosecutor seeks relief from this Court.