section 570.030.3 enhancement in Missouri

2018In Bazell , our Supreme Court held that Section 570.030 did not permit the class A misdemeanor offense of stealing to be enhanced to a felony because, by its own terms, the felony enhancement provision in Section 570.030.3 applied only to those offenses "in which the value of property or services is an element," and "stealing," as defined by Section 570.030.1 2 , contained no such element. 497 S.W.3d at 266 -67 .

2017In State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016), the State argued that the defendant’s charge of stealing could be enhanced from a class A misdemeanor to a class C felony because the property'stolen (a firearm) was designated as eligible for enhancement in section 570.030.3.

2018The Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Bazell in Smith , 522 S.W.3d at 230 .

2017State v. Morris , 197 S.W.3d 638 , 640 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) ; State v. Cowan , 247 S.W.3d 617 , 619 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ("A trial court's construction of a statute is a question of law which we review de novo. ") "Since Bazell , Missouri courts have consistently held that Section 570.030.3 is inapplicable to the offense of stealing, regardless of the particular provision of Section 570.030.3 under which enhancement is sought." State v. Clay , 529 S.W.3d 357 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) ; State v. Smith , 522 S.W.3d 221 , 224 (Mo. banc 2017).

2020See § 570.030, RSMo 2016. 2 applied to all of the sentence-enhancing provisions in section 570.030.3 because those enhancements could be applied only if the value of property or services were an element of the underlying offense. 3 In Windeknecht, this Court declined to make the holdings in Bazell and Smith retroactive to cases on collateral review. 530 S.W.3d at 503 .

2020Windeknecht affirmatively held, however, that it would apply Bazell to cases that were “pending on direct appeal” as well as to cases going “forward.” Id.

2017State v. Morris , 197 S.W.3d 638 , 640 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) ; State v. Cowan , 247 S.W.3d 617 , 619 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ("A trial court's construction of a statute is a question of law which we review de novo. ") "Since Bazell , Missouri courts have consistently held that Section 570.030.3 is inapplicable to the offense of stealing, regardless of the particular provision of Section 570.030.3 under which enhancement is sought." State v. Clay , 529 S.W.3d 357 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) ; State v. Smith , 522 S.W.3d 221 , 224 (Mo. banc 2017).

2017State v. McMillian, No. WD79440, 524 S.W.3d 51, 53 , 2016 WL 6081923 , at *2 (Mo. App. Oct. 18, 2016) (application for transfer filed December 7, 2016) (holding a charge for stealing property valued at more than $500 could not be enhanced to a felony under section 570.030.3(1) because “Bazell made no distinction between the various ways the enhancement provision could be triggered”); State v. Filbeck, 502 S.W.3d 764, 765 (Mo. App. 2016) (reversing and remanding a defendant’s felony stealing convictions for the theft of cattle under section 570.030.3(3)(j) for resentencing as misdemeanors); Sta

2017State v. McMillian, No. WD79440, 524 S.W.3d 51, 53 , 2016 WL 6081923 , at *2 (Mo. App. Oct. 18, 2016) (application for transfer filed December 7, 2016) (holding a charge for stealing property valued at more than $500 could not be enhanced to a felony under section 570.030.3(1) because “Bazell made no distinction between the various ways the enhancement provision could be triggered”); State v. Filbeck, 502 S.W.3d 764, 765 (Mo. App. 2016) (reversing and remanding a defendant’s felony stealing convictions for the theft of cattle under section 570.030.3(3)(j) for resentencing as misdemeanors); Sta