547.037. Motion for release filed, when, procedure. — 1. If testing ordered pursuant to section 547.035 demonstrates a person's innocence of the crime for which the person is in custody, a motion for release may be filed in the sentencing court.
2. The court shall issue to the prosecutor an order to show cause why the motion should not be granted. The prosecutor shall file a response consenting to or opposing the motion.
3. If the prosecutor consents to the motion and if the court finds that such testing demonstrates the movant's innocence of the crime for which he or she is in custody, the court shall order the movant's release from the sentence for the crime for which testing occurred.
4. If the prosecutor files a response opposing the movant's release, the court shall conduct a hearing. If a hearing is ordered, the public defender shall be appointed to represent the movant if the movant is indigent. The hearing shall be on the record. The movant shall have the burden of proving the allegations of the motion by a preponderance of the evidence.
5. If the court finds that the testing ordered pursuant to section 547.035 demonstrates the movant's innocence of the crime for which he or she is in custody, the court shall order the movant's release from the sentence for the crime for which the testing occurred. Otherwise, relief shall be denied the movant.
6. The court shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law whether or not a hearing is held. An appeal may be taken from the court's findings and conclusions as in other civil cases.
Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. 2003).
· cites it 6× “035, RSMo 2002; section 547.037, RSMo 2002. [1] All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise stated.”
State of Missouri v. Pete Wright, 499 S.W.3d 361 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 16× “06(b)(3) motion that sought to set aside an earlier order denying Wright’s section 547.037 motion for release from prison following DNA testing.”
Lowe-Bey v. State, 272 S.W.3d 378 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 17× “Fredrico Lowe-Bey (“Movant”) appeals from the denial of his motion for release pursuant to Section 547.037, RSMo Cum. Supp.2007, 1 following DNA testing pursuant to Section 547.”
State v. Spencer, 569 S.W.3d 477 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 16× “Appellant filed a motion under § 547.037 1 and a habeas corpus claim under Rule 91 2 asserting re-examination of DNA testing would demonstrate his innocence and entitles him to release from custody and a new trial.”
Rodney Lee Lincoln v. State of Missouri, 457 S.W.3d 800 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 11× “AHRENS, Judge Rodney Lee Lincoln (“Movant”) appeals from the judgment of the motion court that denied his Amended Motion for Release pursuant to section 547.037 RSMo (Cum.Supp.2004). 1 Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred denying his Amended Motion for Release…”
Mercer v. State, 512 S.W.3d 748 (Mo. 2017).
· cites it 2× “035, which governs motions for DNA testing, and § 547.037, which governs motions for release from custody after DNA testing, were enacted by the same bill.”
Hudson v. State, 270 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “035 and section 547.037 asserting DNA testing of hair samples taken in relation to the crime will demonstrate he is innocent of the crime inwhich [sic] movant was convicted.”
State v. Waters, 221 S.W.3d 416 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “035 and section 547.037 2 (Second Motion) in August 2004, claiming that a DNA test on samples taken from the rape kit will prove his saliva is not present and, therefore, he did not commit oral sodomy on the victim.”
State v. Fults, 98 S.W.3d 877 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “035 is silent as to remedial appellate procedures; however, Section 547.037, which delineates procedure for Section 547.”
State of Missouri v. Anthony Dixon, 586 S.W.3d 304 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 22× “Dixon claims that the motion court erred in (1) admitting testimony regarding similar criminal charges filed against him in another case; (2) discounting expert testimony regarding the reliability of witness identification; (3) failing to apply any standard of “innocence” under…”
Rodney Lee Lincoln v. State of Missouri, No. ED100987 (Mo. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2014).
· cites it 3× “1 Movant contends that the motion court clearly erred denying his Amended Motion for Release because DNA testing proved that the expert hair comparison evidence was false, and that he is more likely than not to be innocent, such that no rational finder of fact could fairly find…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.