The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments. Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.
DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
9 a.m. Wednesday, October 10, 2018
SC97056
State ex rel. Trevor Griffith v. Anne Precythe, Julie Kempker and Kenny Jones
Texas County
Challenge to revocation of probation and resulting prison sentence
Listen to the oral argument: SC97056 MP3 file
Griffith was represented during arguments by Jedd Schneider of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Patrick Logan of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Trevor Griffith pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance. The circuit court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation for five years. In October 2011, the circuit court revoked Griffith’s probation, sentenced him to five years in prison and ordered him to complete a 120-day treatment program, retaining jurisdiction to put him back on probation if he successfully completed the program. The circuit court subsequently ordered Griffith released from prison, suspended execution of his prison sentence and placed him on another five-year term of probation. A year later, the circuit court revoked probation, sentenced Griffith to serve five years in prison, suspended execution of the sentence and again placed him on probation for five years. In November 2014, the circuit court revoked Griffith’s probation and sent him to serve a five-year sentence in the state’s department of corrections. In March 2017, Griffith sought relief from the sentence in the circuit court, which denied relief. Griffith seeks this Court’s writ compelling his release from prison and his discharge from probation.
This case presents several questions for this Court. The first set of questions involves the effect of the circuit court revoking Griffith’s probation a second time and executing his sentence, whether the circuit court thereafter had authority to impose a third term of probation, and whether the circuit court had authority to revoke probation and execute Griffith’s sentence again. Another question is whether Griffith is barred by the one-year statute of limitations in section 516.145, RSMo, by waiting more than two years to file his first petition seeking relief.
SC97056_Griffith_brief
SC97002
State ex rel. Gary D. Sampson jr. v. The Honorable William E. Hickle
Phelps County
Challenge to continuation on probation
Listen to the oral argument: SC97002 MP3 file
Sampson was represented during arguments by Katherine Schmidt of the public defender’s office in Rolla; the state was represented by Patrick Logan of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Gary Sampson Jr. pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance. The circuit court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Sampson on probation for five years. In November 2013, the circuit court revoked Sampson’s probation and sentenced him to six years in prison, but then suspended execution of sentence and placed him on probation for five years. The circuit court subsequently revoked Sampson’s probation again and executed his sentence. After Sampson successfully completed a 120-day treatment program, the circuit court placed Sampson on probation again. In December 2017, the state moved to revoke probation. Two months later, Sampson filed a motion for discharge from probation, alleging he had accrued earned compliance credits and should have been discharged from probation in July 2017. Following a hearing, the circuit court overruled Sampson’s motion and scheduled a probation violation hearing for March 2018. Since then, he was placed on parole. Sampson now seeks this Court’s writ compelling his unconditional release from the department of corrections.
This case presents one question for this Court – whether the circuit court erred in overruling Sampson’s motion for discharge from probation and setting his case for a probation violation hearing. Related issues involve whether the circuit court manifested intent to revoke Sampson’s second term of probation, whether Sampson accrued earned compliance credits sufficient to qualify for statutory discharge from probation, and, if so, whether he has a clear or unequivocal right to discharge. Additional issues include whether the last term of probation was a third term or an extension of the second term and, if it was the third term, whether the circuit court lost jurisdiction when it ordered this term.
SC97002_Sampson_brief
SC97002_State_brief
SC97091
Crescent Plumbing Supply Company v. Director of Revenue
Cole County
Challenge to denial of sales tax refund
Listen to the oral argument: SC97091 MP3 file
Crescent Plumbing Supply was represented during arguments by Dean Plocher of The Plocher Law Firm in Clayton; the director was represented by Deputy Solicitor Peter Reed of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Crescent Plumbing Supply Company entered into a contract to provide an industrial hot-water system to a purchaser in Florida. The sale involved a series of shipments and modifications of the specifically designed system. All items involved in the system were manufactured, shipped and installed outside Missouri. Shipment and assembly of the system began in December 2012 and finished in June 2013. Crescent made two tax payments on the sale, in April and December 2013. After the purchaser received an inquiry from Florida tax authorities about taxes on the sale, Crescent sought a refund from the Missouri director of revenue in May 2016. The director refunded the December tax payment but denied Crescent’s request with respect to the April tax payment. Crescent appealed to the administrative hearing commission, which found Crescent’s refund request for taxes paid in April 2013 had been made beyond the three-year statute of limitations in section 144.190.2, RSMo. Crescent appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for this Court. One is whether Crescent made a valid request for a refund before the statute of limitations had run. Related issues include whether Crescent erroneously paid – and the director erroneously collected – sales taxes, whether Crescent’s contract constituted a single sale concluded in June 2013, whether the sales tax return period for taxes owed was November 2013 and whether Crescent’s May 2016 application for a refund was timely. Another question is whether the commission misapplied this Court’s precedent or failed to consider the code of state regulations in evaluating the legislative intent of section 144.190.2.
SC97091_Crescent_Plumbing_Supply_brief
SC97091_Director_brief
SC97091_Crescent_Plumbing_Supply_reply_brief