Where a defendant sought to withdraw her guilty plea and set her forgery case for trial and she also challenged the trial court’s authority to impose special conditions of probation, arguing that the conditions were excluded by her plea agreement, the preliminary writ of prohibition is quashed because the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the defendant’s motion to enforce the plea agreement or in not permitting her to withdraw her guilty plea, and the written plea agreement did not bar shock incarceration from the court’s consideration, so the ruling complied with Rule 24.02(d), and the remedy available to the defendant was to seek post-conviction relief.
Dissenting opinion by Breckenridge, J.: “I respectfully dissent. Even if the majority opinion is correct that the circuit court had the authority to place additional special conditions on Christine Delf’s probation without such action constituting a rejection of the plea agreement, the fact remains she pleaded guilty due to the mistaken belief that her plea agreement could not be altered and that, if it was, she would be permitted to withdraw her guilty plea.”
Preliminary writ quashed.
State ex rel. Christine Delf v. Missey (MLW No. 70603/Case No. SC95800 – 21 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Draper III, J.; Fischer, Wilson and Russell, concur; Breckenridge, C.J., dissents in separate opinion filed; Stith, J., concurs in opinion of Breckenridge, C.J. Powell, J., not participating) Original proceeding in prohibition (W. Scott Rose, St. Louis, for relator) (Catherine M. Robertson and Forest K. Wegge, Hillsboro, for respondent).