Background
Deandre Pointer was convicted in 2005 of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and two armed-criminal-action counts. He received four consecutive life sentences. In 2023, after post-conviction proceedings reopened his case, the circuit court vacated his first-degree-murder conviction, entered a second-degree-murder conviction in its place, vacated the other sentences, and resentenced him to four concurrent 23-year terms with credit for all time served.
The Department of Corrections credited all 6,929 days Pointer had served before resentencing to only one count. It credited just 557 days to the other three counts, producing a substantially later release date despite the new concurrent sentences. The Cole County Circuit Court upheld the Department’s calculation on judgment on the pleadings.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed. It held that Pointer is entitled to 6,929 days of credit on each of his four concurrent 23-year sentences and directed the circuit court to enter a declaratory judgment accordingly.
The court held that section 558.031 did not govern because Pointer was not simply resentenced for the same offense: his first-degree-murder conviction was vacated and replaced with a conviction for the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder. Applying the vacatur principle from prior Missouri cases, the court treated the vacated conviction and sentencing package as though they had never existed. The surviving concurrent sentences therefore “drop down” into the place of the vacated sentence, and the Department could not effectively convert them into consecutive terms by assigning the intervening prison time to only one count.
Key Takeaways
- When a conviction and sentencing package are vacated, Missouri’s vacatur rule requires recalculation as if the vacated sentence never existed.
- Concurrent replacement sentences must receive equal credit for the time served under the vacated sentencing structure in these circumstances.
- The court did not reach Pointer’s cruel-and-unusual-punishment or due-process arguments.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the Department of Corrections’ ability to calculate sentence credit in a way that defeats a resentencing court’s express order that terms run concurrently. It also distinguishes cases involving resentencing for the same offense under section 558.031 from cases in which a conviction itself is vacated and replaced by a different offense.