Court Opinion

ID: 9641790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:40:30.335584+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:39.733618
License: Public Domain

DOWD, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I concur in part with and respectfully dissent in part from the majority opinion.
I dissent from the portion of the majority opinion finding a factual dispute on the issue of whether the state entered its nolle prosequi order before or after the trial court accepted the Alford plea. The majority feels that the record can be interpreted in two different ways. While this is true to an extent, I believe the record is clear enough to find that the nolle prosequi was entered prior to acceptance of the guilty plea.
The quoted portion of the transcript indicates that the prosecutor stated “for the record” that he did not intend to go along with the Alford plea, that he presently intended to indict defendant on the additional count of Armed Criminal Action, and that he would “like to file a memo of nol [sic] prosequi.” The court then stated that it was denying the motion to nolle prosequi and proceeded with the plea process. The prosecutor’s actions clearly indicate an intent to nolle prosequi; it is apparent that he appeared before the court with the intention of doing so. In addition, the court treated the prosecutor’s statement of intent to file a motion as if he was in fact filing one at that time. This evinces that *353the prosecutor’s statements indicated immediate, not future, intent.
As the majority indicates, a nolle prose-qui is effective when entered on the record either orally or in writing. See State v. Nicolosi, 588 S.W.2d 152 (Mo.App.1979). Consequently, I do not believe the time of filing the written order is important where the prosecutor orally entered the order pri- or to the plea. In keeping with the principle that appellate courts should finally dispose of all issues in the case unless justice requires otherwise, Rule 84.14, I do not feel the case should be remanded for a finding when the record is clear enough that we may come to our own conclusion with a sufficient degree of confidence. Searcy v. Searcy, 658 S.W.2d 931, 934 (Mo.App.1983).
I concur in all parts of the majority opinion except the portion remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing on the nolle pro-sequi issue.