Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State of Missouri v. Douglas James Boston
Citation: 572 S.W.3d 160Docket: ED107198
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals; April 23, 2019; Missouri; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Douglas Boston appealed the Circuit Court of Montgomery County's order denying his motion to retax costs associated with his criminal case following a guilty plea to child molestation. The Court of Appeals found that Montgomery County lacked the authority to assess these costs, leading to a reversal and remand with directions. Boston was initially charged in Warren County but received a change of venue to Montgomery County. After pleading guilty in January 2015, he was sentenced to fourteen years in prison, during which costs were assessed against him. Despite the prosecution occurring in Montgomery County, Boston was never held in the Montgomery County jail; instead, he was incarcerated in Warren County. Montgomery County subsequently sent a bill for costs, primarily consisting of boarding costs from Warren County, totaling $5,807.46, and later a collection agency demanded $18,493.73 from Boston. Boston's motion to retax costs was denied by the trial court, prompting the appeal. The Court reviewed the case under de novo standard due to the legal nature of the statutory interpretation involved. It concluded that, at common law, costs in criminal proceedings are not recoverable unless expressly authorized by statute. The court referenced previous rulings indicating that jail board bills are not considered court costs, as supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in State v. Richey. The relevant statutory provisions, specifically sections 550.120 and 550.130, clarify that costs for cases with a change of venue are to be borne by the original county, not the one where the case is tried or where the accused is confined, unless the transfer was improper. Fines, penalties, and forfeitures collected from criminal convictions must be paid into the treasury of the county where the indictment or prosecution originated, benefiting the county's public fund. In cases of change of venue, the originating county, in this instance, Warren County, remains responsible for costs despite proceedings occurring in a different county, Montgomery County. Montgomery County improperly sought recovery of costs from both Boston and the State instead of from Warren County, violating statutory requirements. Consequently, the trial court's denial of Boston's motion to retax costs was erroneous. The court orders the vacating of all court-cost tax bills issued in this case and mandates a refund of any costs collected by Montgomery County. The General Assembly's intent, as outlined in 514.270, allows for the challenge of unauthorized court costs and the possibility of refunds. Boston's assertion of being excused from cost liability due to an insolvency finding in the vacated bill of costs is addressed but not opined upon, as the finding is no longer valid. The State's claim that Montgomery County was acting on behalf of Warren County lacks a statutory basis. The trial court's order is reversed and the case is remanded for consistent proceedings.