Opinion ID: 1655666
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the Conditional Writ of Habeas Corpus Cure the Defect?

Text: Rather than seeking mandamus relief in the court of appeals, Mertens filed for habeas corpus relief in the county in which he was incarcerated. That court issued a conditional writ of habeas corpus purporting to remand the case to the Respondent for purposes of holding the hearing required by section 559.115. The writ is problematic for at least two reasons: (1) section 559.115 requires the hearing to be held within 120 days of the offender's sentence and (2) a circuit court is not authorized to remand a case to another circuit court to correct an error. In this case, Mertens began his sentence June 7, 2005. The trial court's authority to order the sentence executed expired 120 days thereafter  October 5. The habeas order did not issue until December 22  beyond the time the trial court was authorized to act. Section 559.115 not only requires a hearing, but also a hearing within 120 days of the offender's sentence. Moreover, one circuit court has no supervisory authority over another circuit court to order the correction of errors. This Court and the court of appeals have supervisory authority. Mo. Const. article V, section 4. There is no similar grant of authority to the circuit courts over other circuit courts. See State ex rel. Deaton v. Sweeney, 716 S.W.2d 21, 22 (Mo.App.1986) (circuit judge not subject to correction by a judge who stood on equal judicial footing); State ex rel. Johnston v. Luckenbill, 975 S.W.2d 253, 255 (Mo.App.1998); State ex rel. Drienik v. Clifford, 944 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Mo.App.997) (an associate circuit division is not subject to the circuit court's jurisdiction for remedial writs.)