Summary
This Missouri Court of Appeals decision addresses whether a prosecutor violated a defendant's due process rights through prosecutorial vindictiveness by filing an amended information charging him as a prior offender after he withdrew a guilty plea. Relying on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the court held that presumptions of vindictiveness do not apply in pretrial plea negotiations and that enhancing charges to reflect probable cause upon failed negotiations constitutes a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Consequently, the defendant's due process claim was rejected, and his conviction was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the filing of an amended information charging the defendant as a prior offender after the defendant withdrew his plea constitutes prosecutorial vindictiveness in violation of due process.
Holdings
- The filing was a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion and did not violate the defendant’s due‑process rights; the presumption of vindictiveness is unwarranted in the pre‑trial setting.
Key quotations
“The law is clear that “[t]o punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.”” (808)
“Therefore, the defendant’s right to due process was not violated by the prosecutor’s amendment of the information.” (810)
Factual background
Molinett was indicted for distribution of a controlled substance. After plea negotiations, he withdrew his acceptance of a plea agreement and asserted his right to trial. The state then filed an amended information charging him as a prior drug offender and prior offender, enhancing his sentence.
Procedural history
The trial court convicted Molinett of distribution of a controlled substance and sentenced him as a prior offender. Molinett withdrew his plea, the state filed an amended information adding prior‑offender charges, and Molinett appealed, arguing prosecutorial vindictiveness.