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, February 6, 2019
SC97604
State of Missouri v. George Richey
St. Clair County
Challenge to inclusion of cost of county incarceration in court costs taxed against defendant
Listen to the oral argument: SC97604 MP3 file
Richey was represented during arguments by Matthew G. Mueller of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by the former St. Clair County prosecutor, Joshua P. Jones of Collins & Jones PC in Osceola.
George Richey pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. The circuit court sentenced him to 90 days in the county jail and ordered him to pay, by the end of the year, a $3,150 “board bill” for the cost of his incarceration while in jail. The circuit court taxed this amount as a court cost. The circuit court has held review hearings in Richey’s case approximately every month since it sentenced him. Richey subsequently was arrested and held in the county jail for approximately two months. The parties dispute whether Richey was arrested for failing to obey a court order or for failing to pay the initial board bill. The circuit court assessed against Richey an additional board bill of $2,275 and added this amount to the court costs it taxed against him. He asked the court to retax costs, seeking to eliminate the jail debt assessed against him. The circuit court overruled his motion. Richey appeals.
This appeal presents three questions for this Court involving whether the circuit court should have sustained Richey’s motion. One involves whether state law permits the cost of jail detention to be assessed against criminal defendants or taxed as court costs and the extent to which the circuit court was required to refer any delinquent debt to the state courts administrator’s office for collection. The second question involves whether the circuit court was required to determine whether Richey’s ability to pay the costs before ordering him to pay, as well as whether or when Richey alleged he was unable to pay court costs. The third question involves whether the circuit court correctly calculated the jail debt.
Several entities filed briefs as friends of the Court. The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri argues a statute ostensibly permitting a county jail board bill to be taxed against a criminal defendant as a court cost is ambiguous and incarcerating a criminal defendant for failing to pay a county board bill, regardless of whether it is taxed as a cost, violates due process and equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions. The attorney general argues state law does not clearly or unambiguously authorize jail debt to be taxed as court costs and the legislature’s exclusion of jail debt from authorized court costs reflects means such debt must be collected in some other appropriate manner but cannot be taxed as court costs. Organizations including the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection argue it is inconsistent with the federal constitution and the plain language of state law to tax jail debt as court costs, taxing jail debt against indigent defendants and requiring them to appear in person every month causes harm, and civil legal proceedings can be used to recoup jail debt from those able to pay.
SC97604_Richey_brief_filed_in_SD
SC97604_ICAP_et_al._amici_brief
SC97630
State of Missouri v. John B. Wright
Lafayette County
Challenge to inclusion of cost of county incarceration in court costs taxed against defendant
Listen to the oral argument: SC97630 MP3 file
Wright was represented during arguments by Matthew G. Mueller of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by Lafayette County Prosecutor Kristen Hilbrenner, whose office is in Lexington.
John Wright pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors. The circuit court sentenced him to 90 days in the county jail and ordered him to pay a “board bill” of nearly $1,360 to pay for the cost of his incarceration in the county jail. The circuit court taxed this amount as a court cost. The circuit court has held review hearings in Wright’s case approximately every month since it sentenced him. Wright asked the court to retax costs, seeking to eliminate the jail debt assessed against him. The circuit court overruled his motion. Wright appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for this Court substantially similar to the first two raised in SC97604, summarized above.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, which filed a brief in this case as a friend of the Court, makes substantially the same arguments as it did in SC97604, summarized above.
SC97630_Wright_brief_filed_in_WD
SC97630
State of Missouri v. John B. Wright
Lafayette County
Challenge to inclusion of cost of county incarceration in court costs taxed against defendant
Listen to the oral argument: SC97630 MP3 file
Wright was represented during arguments by Matthew G. Mueller of the public defender’s office in Kansas City; the state was represented by Lafayette County Prosecutor Kristen Hilbrenner, whose office is in Lexington.
John Wright pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors. The circuit court sentenced him to 90 days in the county jail and ordered him to pay a “board bill” of nearly $1,360 to pay for the cost of his incarceration in the county jail. The circuit court taxed this amount as a court cost. The circuit court has held review hearings in Wright’s case approximately every month since it sentenced him. Wright asked the court to retax costs, seeking to eliminate the jail debt assessed against him. The circuit court overruled his motion. Wright appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for this Court substantially similar to the first two raised in SC97604, summarized above.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri, which filed a brief in this case as a friend of the Court, makes substantially the same arguments as it did in SC97604, summarized above.
SC97630_Wright_brief_filed_in_WD