Opinion ID: 1466605
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Department of Corrections Report and Recommendations

Text: When the offender in prison files a petition, the department of corrections shall submit a report to the sentencing court which evaluates the conduct of the offender while in custody, alternative custodial methods available to the offender, and shall recommend whether the offender be released or remain in custody. Section 558.016.8. The report, which is based upon the offender's conduct in prison and the resources available for alternative punishment, is to guide the sentencing court's discretion. If the report issued by the department is favorable and recommends probation, parole, or other alternative sentence, the court shall follow the recommendations of the department if the court deems it appropriate. This provision is similar to a provision in section 217.362.3 which this Court construed in State ex rel. Beggs v. Dormire, 91 S.W.3d 605 (Mo. banc 2002). There the statute said the sentencing court shall follow the recommendation of the board [of probation and parole] unless the court makes a determination that such a placement [on probation] would be an abuse of discretion. The trial court had rejected the recommendation for probation on the basis of the offender's criminal history prior to his present custody. Denial of probation, this Court held, was an abuse of discretion where there was no evidence from the offender's time in custody that the offender was unfit for probation. 91 S.W.3d at 607. Section 558.016.8 likewise contemplates that the sentencing judge's discretion is to be based upon the report as to the offender's conduct during incarceration following the initial sentencing and as to the alternatives to imprisonment that are available. The judge's November 7 order, entered before the judge received the department of corrections report, failed to follow the statute. The report is a necessary pre-condition to the sentencing court's order because the order must be based on the conduct of the offender in prison as well as the alternatives to prison. Since section 558.016.8 provides that no hearing shall be conducted unless the court deems it necessary, the report ordinarily is where the sentencing judge will find out about Estes' conduct in prison. The corrections report also is to provide the sentencing judge with information about the resources available to manage the offender out of prison under probation, parole, or other court-approved alternative sentence. The latter may include treatment for addiction, community-based punishments, restorative justice programs, and the appropriate conditions to be imposed upon an order for probation or parole. [8] In this case, the corrections report recommended the following conditions be placed upon Estes when he was paroled: Intensive Supervision Program, No Drinking, Substance Abuse Program, and No Employment as a Salesman. At the time he entered his order in December for judicial parole, the judge may not have received the corrections report and may not have been aware of its recommendations. These recommended conditions are not included in his order for judicial parole. The statute, as noted, says: If the report issued by the department is favorable and recommends probation, parole, or other alternative sentence, the court shall follow the recommendations of the department if the court deems it appropriate. The word recommendations is plural, so it includes the kinds of conditions of probation or parole recommended in Estes' case, not just the singular recommendation of probation or parole or other alternative. The omission of these conditions may be error, unless the court found the recommended conditions to be inappropriate. The state, however, seeks no such relief. If the judge did not receive the report prior to entering his order, the state may have contributed to cause the error.