589.040. Duties of department of corrections — certain inmates to participate in programs. — 1. The director of the department of corrections shall develop a program of treatment, education and rehabilitation for all imprisoned offenders who are serving sentences for sexual assault offenses. When developing such programs, the ultimate goal shall be the prevention of future sexual assaults by the participants in such programs, and the director shall utilize those concepts, services, programs, projects, facilities and other resources designed to achieve this goal.
2. All persons imprisoned by the department of corrections for sexual assault offenses shall be required to successfully complete the programs developed pursuant to subsection 1 of this section prior to being eligible for parole or conditional release.
Notes of Decisions
Winfrey v. Missouri Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 521 S.W.3d 236 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 24× “In his pursuit of a motion for preliminary injunction and his request for declaratory judgment, Winfrey alleged that the Board of Probation and Parole erroneously interpreted Section 589.040 1 and asked the circuit court to declare Winfrey’s completion of a Colorado sex offender…”
Billy J. Reynolds & Jody Miller v. Missouri Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 468 S.W.3d 413 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 14× “5; 1 (2) that the Board’s reliance on an amended version of section 589.040 to render the Appellants ineligible for parole violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws; 2 and (3) that the Board’s reliance on an amended version of section 589.”
Depauw v. Luebbers, 285 S.W.3d 805 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 12× “The court also found that the Department of Corrections (DOC) and the Board were not authorized by Sections 589.040 and 558.011.5 to extend the conditional release date of an inmate who fails to complete the program if the inmate is not serving a sentence for a sexual assault…”
Miller v. Mitchell, 25 S.W.3d 658 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 9× “Miller’s offenses, § 589.040, RSMo 1986, required that all persons imprisoned by the Department of Corrections for sexual assault offenses participate in MOSOP, a treatment, education, and rehabilitation program whose goal is “the prevention of future sexual assaults by the…”
State Ex Rel. Valentine v. Orr, 366 S.W.3d 534 (Mo. 2012).
· cites it 2× “785 (post-conviction drug treatment program); and section 589.040 (Missouri sex offender program or MoSOP).”
Patterson v. Webster, 760 F. Supp. 150 (E.D. Mo. 1991).
· cites it 8× “Plaintiffs' specific allegations against the defendants are: (1) that they have "improperly and unlawfully" applied the provisions of Mo.Rev.Stat. § 589.040 (Supp. II 1990) [1] *152 to the plaintiffs because that statute is "specifically worded to encompass only offenders…”
In re Braddy, 559 S.W.3d 905 (Mo. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Section 589.040 provides, "All persons imprisoned by the department of corrections for sexual assault offenses shall be required to successfully complete the program[ ] .”
Winslow v. Nixon, 93 S.W.3d 795 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 7× “010(4)(D) (2002) which states "[a]ll inmates imprisoned for sexual assault offenses shall participate in and complete the prescribed treatment program developed by the Department of Corrections prior to being eligible for parole (section 589.040, RSMo)." The MOSOP was created…”
State ex rel. Nixon v. Pennoyer, 39 S.W.3d 521 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “Section 589.040, RSMo 1994, requires all inmates to complete MOSOP in order to be considered for parole.”
Spencer v. State, 334 S.W.3d 559 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “” Section 589.040 5 requires that the DOC develop a treatment and rehabilitation program for sexual assault offenders, and that all sexual assault offenders successfully complete the program.”
Mitchell v. Nixon, 351 S.W.3d 676 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Finally, Mitchell argued that § 589.040 does not give the parole board the authority to deny him parole for failure to complete the sexual offender program.”
Frederick Spencer v. George Lombardi, 500 S.W.3d 885 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
“In his first count, Spencer claims the “Defendants” deliberately, knowingly, and intentionally cancelled his mandatory conditional release date and kept him incarcerated for an additional 56 months by repeatedly refusing to provide mandatory treatment services, required under §…”
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.