Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.115 (2026)

Appeals, probation not to be granted, when

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

559.115. Appeals, probation not to be granted, when — probation granted after delivery to department of corrections, time limitation, assessment — one hundred twenty day program — notification to state, when, hearing — no probation in certain cases. — 1. Neither probation nor parole shall be granted by the circuit court between the time the transcript on appeal from the offender's conviction has been filed in appellate court and the disposition of the appeal by such court.

2. Unless otherwise prohibited by subsection 8 of this section, a circuit court only upon its own motion and not that of the state or the offender shall have the power to grant probation to an offender anytime up to one hundred twenty days after such offender has been delivered to the department of corrections but not thereafter. The court may request information and a recommendation from the department concerning the offender and such offender's behavior during the period of incarceration. Except as provided in this section, the court may place the offender on probation in a program created pursuant to section 217.777, or may place the offender on probation with any other conditions authorized by law.

3. The court may recommend placement of an offender in a department of corrections one hundred twenty-day program under this subsection. The department of corrections shall assess each offender to determine the appropriate one hundred twenty-day program in which to place the offender, which may include placement in the structured cognitive behavioral intervention program or institutional treatment program. The placement of an offender in the structured cognitive behavioral intervention program or institutional treatment program shall be at the sole discretion of the department based on the assessment of the offender and available bed space. When the court recommends and receives placement of an offender in a department of corrections one hundred twenty-day program, the offender shall be released on probation if the department of corrections determines that the offender has successfully completed the program except as follows. Upon successful completion of a program under this subsection, the division of probation and parole shall advise the sentencing court of an offender's probationary release date thirty days prior to release. The court shall follow the recommendation of the department unless the court determines that probation is not appropriate. If the court determines that probation is not appropriate, the court may order the execution of the offender's sentence only after conducting a hearing on the matter within ninety to one hundred twenty days from the date the offender was delivered to the department of corrections. If the department determines the offender has not successfully completed a one hundred twenty-day program under this subsection, the division of probation and parole shall advise the prosecuting attorney and the sentencing court of the defendant's unsuccessful program exit and the defendant shall be removed from the program. The department shall report on the offender's participation in the program and may provide recommendations for terms and conditions of an offender's probation. The court shall then have the power to grant probation or order the execution of the offender's sentence.

4. If the court is advised that an offender is not eligible for placement in a one hundred twenty-day program under subsection 3 of this section, the court shall consider other authorized dispositions. If the department of corrections one hundred twenty-day program under subsection 3 of this section is full, the court may place the offender in a private program approved by the department of corrections or the court, the expenses of such program to be paid by the offender, or in an available program offered by another organization. If the offender is convicted of a class C, class D, or class E nonviolent felony, the court may order probation while awaiting appointment to treatment.

5. Except when the offender has been found to be a predatory sexual offender pursuant to section 566.125, the court shall request the department of corrections to conduct a sexual offender assessment if the defendant has been found guilty of sexual abuse when classified as a class B felony. Upon completion of the assessment, the department shall provide to the court a report on the offender and may provide recommendations for terms and conditions of an offender's probation. The assessment shall not be considered a one hundred twenty-day program as provided under subsection 3 of this section. The process for granting probation to an offender who has completed the assessment shall be as provided under subsections 2 and 6 of this section.

6. Unless the offender is being granted probation pursuant to successful completion of a one hundred twenty-day program the circuit court shall notify the state in writing when the court intends to grant probation to the offender pursuant to the provisions of this section. The state may, in writing, request a hearing within ten days of receipt of the court's notification that the court intends to grant probation. Upon the state's request for a hearing, the court shall grant a hearing as soon as reasonably possible. If the state does not respond to the court's notice in writing within ten days, the court may proceed upon its own motion to grant probation.

7. An offender's first incarceration under this section prior to release on probation shall not be considered a previous prison commitment for the purpose of determining a minimum prison term under the provisions of section 558.019.

8. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, probation may not be granted pursuant to this section to offenders who have been convicted of murder in the second degree pursuant to section 565.021; forcible rape pursuant to section 566.030 as it existed prior to August 28, 2013; rape in the first degree under section 566.030; forcible sodomy pursuant to section 566.060 as it existed prior to August 28, 2013; sodomy in the first degree under section 566.060; statutory rape in the first degree pursuant to section 566.032; statutory sodomy in the first degree pursuant to section 566.062; child molestation in the first degree pursuant to section 566.067 when classified as a class A felony; abuse of a child pursuant to section 568.060 when classified as a class A felony; or an offender who has been found to be a predatory sexual offender pursuant to section 566.125; any offense under section 557.045; or any offense in which there exists a statutory prohibition against either probation or parole.

--------

(L. 1990 H.B. 974, A.L. 1996 H.B. 974, A.L. 2000 S.B. 757 & 602, A.L. 2003 S.B. 5, A.L. 2005 H.B. 353, A.L. 2012 H.B. 1525, A.L. 2013 H.B. 215 merged with H.B. 374 & 434, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491, A.L. 2014 H.B. 1371, A.L. 2021 S.B. 26 merged with S.B. 53 & 60, A.L. 2022 S.B. 775, et al.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 216 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Irvin v. Kempker, 152 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Irvin v. Kempker, 152 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 21× “Irvin’s probation was revoked in February 2000, and he was placed in Missouri Department of Corrections custody under the “120-day callback” provisions of Section 559.115, RSMo 1998. The trial *360 court subsequently released Irvin back on probation.”

State Ex Rel. Valentine v. Orr, 366 S.W.3d 534 (Mo. 2012). · cites it 14× “Pursuant to the plea agreement and the Board’s pre-sentence investigation and sentencing assessment, the circuit court retained jurisdiction over Valentine pursuant to section 559.115. The court requested that Valentine be placed in the SOAU, and reiterated that Valentine’s…”

Brown v. State, 66 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. 2002). · cites it 10× “Brown in an institutional treatment program and retaining the authority for 120 days to grant probation under section 559.115, which states in pertinent part: A circuit court only upon its own motion and not that of the state or the defendant shall have the power to grant…”

State Ex Rel. Mertens v. Brown, 198 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. 2006). · cites it 14× “The court sentenced Mer-tens to the custody of the department of corrections pursuant to section 559.115. 1 Within the first 120 days of Merten’s sentence, the department of corrections reported that he had successfully completed the institutional program.”

DePriest v. State, 510 S.W.3d 331 (Mo. 2017). · cites it 10× “The state offered a joint plea deal to the DePriests of 10 years’ imprisonment with the possibility of probation if they successfully completed a program of shock incarceration under section 559.115. In response, defense counsel wrote a joint letter to the DePriests advising…”

Brown v. State, 67 S.W.3d 708 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 17× “” See section 559.115 RSMo.2000. The court denied the request and sentenced movant in accordance with the plea agreement to ten years imprisonment.”

Ridinger v. Missouri Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 189 S.W.3d 658 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 22× “1, when he was initially received by the DOC, under section 559.115, RSMo Cum.Supp.1990, to serve a 120-day callback program and, in Case No.”

Roberts v. State, 276 S.W.3d 833 (Mo. 2009). · cites it 6× “[4] Movant sought to participate in institutional treatment pursuant to section 559.115, RSMo Supp.2008, which provides an opportunity for probation if an offender successfully completes drug treatment.”

Michaels v. State, 346 S.W.3d 404 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 26× “The sentence and judgment in each case stated, “The Defendant is committed to the Institutional Treatment Program (§559.115 RSMo). The Department of Corrections [ (“DOC”) ] shall provide a report and recommendation whether probation should be granted.”

Reed v. State, 114 S.W.3d 871 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 24× “Unlike the 120-day shock incarceration program or drug treatment program under Section 559.115, RSMo, (where the court has discretion whether or not to grant probation at the end of 120 days), the boot camp statute provides that probation shall be granted upon successful…”

Jones v. State, 516 S.W.3d 447 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 18× “On appeal, Jones argues that his defense counsel was ineffective for advising Jones that he was eligible for the 120-day drug treatment program under Section 559.115 2 (“120-day program”) when the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) was denying eligibility to defendants…”

Etenburn v. State, 341 S.W.3d 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 25× “In addition to reflecting a ten-year sentence in each case, each docket entry stated “[Movant] committed under Section 559.115 RSMo for general shock incarceration” and If [Movant] is released during the first 120 days of his sentence, [Movant] must evaluated [sic] for his…”

Show all 216 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.115(2) — 3 cases

Reynolds v. State, 939 S.W.2d 451 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

State ex rel. McCulloch v. Schiff, 852 S.W.2d 392 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).

Rivera v. State, 912 S.W.2d 103 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.115(3) — 1 case

State of Missouri Ex Rel. John Logan Lee Newton, Relator v. The Honorable Laura Johnson, 496 S.W.3d 516 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.115(8) — 1 case

Jones v. State, 516 S.W.3d 447 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). “On appeal, Jones argues that his defense counsel was ineffective for advising Jones that he was eligible for the 120-day drug treatment program under Section 559.115 2 (“120-day program”) when the Missouri Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) was denying eligibility to defendants…”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.115(b) — 1 case

Thomas v. Nixon, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (E.D. Mo. 1998).

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.