Opinion ID: 4472688
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is Kelly’s Claim Procedurally Barred?

Text: The State asserts Kelly’s claim is procedurally barred because he did not raise it in the circuit court at the time he made his NGRI plea or on direct appeal. Habeas relief is not a substitute for direct appeal or postconviction proceedings. Denney, 396 S.W.3d at 337. Claims that were cognizable on direct appeal or in postconviction proceedings are procedurally barred. Clay v. Dormire, 37 S.W.3d 214, 217 (Mo. banc 2000). An appeal is proper “[i]n all cases of final judgment rendered upon any indictment or information.” Section 547.070. “No right of an appeal exists without statutory authority.” State v. Craig, 287 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Mo. banc 2009). There is no statutory right to appeal from an acquittal as a result of an NGRI plea. State ex rel. Koster v. Oxenhandler, 491 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. App. 2016) (“Habeas is thus the only viable means 4 by which the lawfulness of confinement as a result of the NGRI defense can be challenged.” (emphasis added)). 2 Because the trial court acquitted Kelly as a result of an NGRI plea, he could not have filed a direct appeal and habeas is the proper remedy in this case. Similarly, Kelly’s failure to raise his claim in the circuit court does not bar him from habeas relief. The State cites State ex rel. Strong v. Griffith, 462 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. banc 2015), in support of its argument that Kelly’s claim is procedurally barred for failure to raise the claim in the circuit court, but that case can be distinguished on its facts. The Court in Strong determined the claim was barred not only because it was not raised at trial, but also because it was not raised during post-conviction proceedings. 462 S.W.3d at 734. Kelly, on the other hand, could not have raised his claim at postconviction proceedings because he was acquitted – not convicted. See Rule 24.035(a). 3 2 Indeed, Missouri courts have addressed habeas claims after NGRI pleas when the petitioner did not file a direct appeal from the underlying case. See Oxenhandler, 491 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. App. 2016) (addressing habeas claims following acceptance of NGRI plea when petitioner did not file a direct appeal); see also State ex rel. Hawley v. Heagney, 523 S.W.3d 447 (Mo. banc 2017) (reviewing circuit court’s grant of habeas relief following acceptance of NGRI plea when defendant did not file a direct appeal). 3 The dissenting opinion asserts Kelly’s claim is procedurally barred because he had two remedies he could have pursued in the circuit court. Slip op. at 2. Importantly, and as the dissenting opinion recognizes, both of these remedies are for individuals committed to the department of mental health pursuant to section 552.020.8. These remedies were not available to Kelly, as the circuit court’s order and procedural posture in this case indicate Kelly was committed pursuant to section 552.030.2 – not section 552.020.8. Indeed, the circuit court’s order is titled “Order Committing Defendant to Department of Mental Health (State Acceptance of Mental Defense),” indicating the circuit court committed Kelly as a result of its acceptance of Kelly’s NGRI plea. Further, a commitment pursuant to section 552.020.8 occurs after a circuit court suspends criminal proceedings. See section 552.020.8 (“If the court determines that the accused lacks mental fitness to proceed, the criminal proceedings shall be suspended . . .” (emphasis added)). The circuit court in this case did not suspend the criminal proceedings but, instead, committed Kelly pursuant to section 552.030.2 after finding him not guilty by reason of 5 The procedural bar to habeas proceedings exists “[o]ut of concern over duplicative and unending challenges to the finality of a judgment.” Clay, 37 S.W.3d at 217. Such a concern is inapplicable here, as Kelly could not have raised his claims on direct appeal or in a postconviction proceeding. For these reasons, Kelly’s claim is not procedurally barred, and this Court will proceed to the merits.