Parole calculations raise legal questions across Missouri

Missouri’s system for calculating prison time and administering parole has drawn scrutiny from courts, attorneys and legislators who say its complexity can lead to inconsistent outcomes and confusion. Ambiguous sentencing statutes, opaque parole eligibility guidelines and discretionary decision-making by the Parole Board have left some attorneys unsure how to advise their clients and left incarcerated individuals uncertain about their release prospects.

“In general, when somebody’s looking at doing time in prison, it’s real hard for us … to tell them exactly how much time they’re going to do,” said Craig Napier, a criminal defense attorney with Benjamin Law in Kansas City. “You can give them some ideas … but you can’t guarantee anything.”

Napier said part of the confusion comes from misinformation circulating inside facilities.

“A very common source of confusion is their inmate friends,” he said, adding that rumor often fills the gap left by unclear guidance. “And we can’t dispel that as easily.”

Parole eligibility in Missouri depends on a variety of factors. Statutes impose mandatory minimums for categories such as dangerous felonies (85 percent of the sentence served), and enhancements based on prior prison commitments (40 percent, 50 percent or 80 percent). A separate Department of Corrections scoring system, often referred to as the “blue book,” uses institutional conduct, prior history and other factors to determine how much of a sentence must be served before parole is considered.

“One guy may serve 25 percent of a 7-year sentence … and another guy may be serving 85 percent of that sentence,” said Andrew Russek, a defense attorney with Combs Waterkotte in St. Louis. “You really cannot advise your client because you really don’t know, and DOC doesn’t even actually have to follow those rules. Those are just internal guidelines.”

Russek said he warns clients accordingly: “I always tell my clients … you may do every single day of your sentence.”

This confusion can extend to the bench. Russek recalled instances where judges based sentencing decisions on parole assumptions that were incorrect. In one case, a judge said a defendant would likely serve three years of a seven-year sentence, only to be told afterward that because of DOC’s classification and prior-commitment rules, the defendant would likely serve nearly the entire term.

Plea deals are affected as well. Russek noted that clients sometimes opt for longer sentences if they carry the possibility of earlier parole, avoiding charges that trigger mandatory minimums. But even then, outcomes vary.

“I’ve seen people go up and do two months on a seven-year sentence,” he said. “And I’ve seen people do six years on the same seven-year sentence for the same crime.”

He added that confusion over parole classifications has contributed to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in post-conviction cases, including situations where defendants were incorrectly advised that their offenses did not carry 85 percent requirements.

Such inconsistencies have prompted legal challenges. In Gasca v. Precythe, a class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in 2017, plaintiffs alleged that Missouri’s parole revocation practices violated constitutional due process. According to court documents, parolees were often not informed of the evidence against them, not provided legal representation and pressured to waive their hearings.

In 2023, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld key elements of a lower court decision requiring the state to reform its practices. The court mandated that Missouri provide notice of alleged violations, disclose evidence in advance and ensure parolees can request counsel when appropriate. It also affirmed the requirement that written reasons be given for revocation decisions.

Napier said defendants often don’t realize how revocation processes differ from trial rights.

“It’s really easy to screw up probation and end up … in prison,” he said. “And then you don’t have much in the way of due process rights.”

To address broader concerns, Gov. Mike Kehoe signed Executive Order 25-07 in January 2025, calling for a comprehensive review of the state’s parole rules, which hadn’t been updated since 2017. The order directed the DOC and Parole Board to assemble a working group to draft reforms that promote “clarity, transparency, and accountability” in the parole process.

That working group, composed of parole board members, DOC officials, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement and advocates, submitted proposed rule changes in fall 2025. The draft reforms include clarifications to how parole eligibility is calculated, updates to reflect the current “blue book” and adjustments to parole hearing procedures. The proposals aim to provide a clearer framework for determining release timelines and to ensure consistency in parole decisions.

Among the changes, the working group clarified that eligibility for parole on consecutive sentences would be calculated by adding minimums for each sentence. Parole hearings would be scheduled four months before the eligibility date and inmates could have two delegates appear on their behalf to present mitigating factors or rehabilitation efforts. Additionally, some nonviolent offenders serving time for Class C, D or E felonies and certain drug offenses could be released without a formal hearing, based on a risk and needs assessment. The board would still reserve the right to require a hearing in specific cases.

In terms of revocation, in line with the federal court rulings, the proposed rules formalize that parole violators will not be processed until due process steps are fulfilled. These steps include a preliminary hearing unless waived, eligibility screening for legal counsel and advance disclosure of evidence to both the parolee and their attorney. The revisions remove language that previously indicated parole would be revoked automatically for those with less than a year remaining on supervision, and they reinforce that revocation should only occur when there is evidence of new law violations or serious technical violations involving community safety.

Despite these changes, the group could not agree on whether the required percentage of time served before parole eligibility should be increased or decreased. The final decision was to leave those percentages unchanged, a decision that the working group noted was not unanimous.

Russek said that more uniform parole requirements could reduce confusion.

“The way to achieve that would be something similar to what the feds do … called ‘Truth in Sentencing,’ where everybody just serves 85 percent,” he said. But he cautioned that such rigidity would reduce the incentive to rehabilitate. “It takes away from the offenders that do reform themselves … and maybe don’t need to serve their full sentence.”

Napier said better data transparency would help all parties, including judges and jurors, such as the trends for how much time is actually being served versus what is sentenced for certain crimes that do not fall within the 85-percent minimum threshold.

“I … think that the more information we would have, the better off jurors would be, (the) people that are making these decisions, because everybody assumes that prison is a revolving door, and that if you get sent on a 20-year sentence, you’re going to get out six months. Well, that’s not true,” Napier said. “I really think the more information we could get to dispel some of that misinformation, which really comes from the public and other people who have charges or other people that have been in the system, because everybody has their own kind of view of the way it works … (The) more information we had about what’s really going on, the better.”