Excess Sentence Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect: Exclusivity of Rule 24.035 in Post-Conviction Relief

Introduction

In In re Robert J. Branson v. Michael Shewmaker, Warden (Missouri Supreme Court, April 29, 2025), the Court confronts whether a habeas corpus petitioner can obtain relief for an “excessive” sentence after having pleaded guilty—and after failing to raise the issue in a Rule 24.035 post-conviction motion. Robert J. Branson pleaded an Alford guilty plea to one count of first-degree child molestation (class A felony) and two counts of statutory rape (class C felonies). He did not challenge the factual basis of the plea or his sentencing exposure in his direct appeal or his Rule 24.035 motion. Years later he petitioned for habeas corpus, claiming his life sentence exceeded the statutory maximum because the facts supporting a class A felony had not been alleged at the plea hearing. The Supreme Court of Missouri denied relief, holding that an excessive sentence is a non-jurisdictional error subject to waiver by a guilty plea and must be challenged under Rule 24.035 or on direct appeal—not by habeas corpus.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc, denied Branson’s habeas petition. It reaffirmed that:

A guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional claims, including excess-sentence claims, except those preserved in a Rule 24.035 motion.
Rule 24.035 provides the exclusive post-conviction remedy for claiming “the sentence imposed was in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by law.”
An excess sentence does not constitute a jurisdictional defect allowing habeas corpus review of a procedurally defaulted claim.
Precedents treating excess sentences as jurisdictional defects (e.g., State ex rel. Zinna v. Steele, Osowski v. Purkett) are overruled to that extent.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State ex rel. Sitton v. Norman, 406 S.W.3d 915 (Mo. banc 2013): defines the limited scope of habeas corpus relief.
State ex rel. Amrine v. Roper, 102 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. banc 2003): emphasizes finality of judgments.
State ex rel. Johnson v. Vandergriff, 668 S.W.3d 574 (Mo. banc 2023): procedural default bars habeas claims unless jurisdictional defect, cause & prejudice, or manifest injustice.
State ex rel. Simmons v. White, 866 S.W.2d 443 (Mo. banc 1993): habeas is no substitute for post-conviction relief except in “rare and exceptional” circumstances.
State ex rel. White v. State, 779 S.W.2d 571 (Mo. banc 1989): first interpreted the interplay between Rule 24.035 and habeas corpus.
State ex rel. Zinna v. Steele, 301 S.W.3d 510 (Mo. banc 2010): held excess sentences were jurisdictional errors—overruled.
State ex rel. Osowski v. Purkett, 908 S.W.2d 690 (Mo. banc 1995): same—overruled.
State ex rel. Dutton v. Sevier, 83 S.W.2d 581 (Mo. banc 1935): pre-Rule 24.035 authority, assumed broad habeas scope.
State v. Russell, 598 S.W.3d 133 (Mo. banc 2020): confirms excessive sentences may be raised on direct appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds in three key steps:

Waiver by Guilty Plea: Under State v. Rohra, 545 S.W.3d 344 (Mo. banc 2018), a knowing and voluntary plea waives “all non-jurisdictional defects,” including statutory and constitutional claims. Branson entered a fully informed Alford plea, acknowledging exposure to a life sentence for a class A felony.
Exclusivity of Rule 24.035: Rule 24.035(a) is the “single, unitary, post-conviction remedy” for challenging an unlawful sentence, including one “in excess of the maximum sentence authorized by law.” Habeas corpus cannot be used in lieu of Rule 24.035 or direct appeal.
Jurisdiction vs. Sentencing Error: True jurisdictional defects concern subject-matter or personal jurisdiction. A sentencing error—even one exceeding the authorized range—is a legal error correctable on direct appeal or under Rule 24.035, not a basis for habeas relief.

Impact

This decision clarifies and restricts habeas corpus in Missouri:

Excess-sentence claims must be raised on direct appeal or in Rule 24.035 motions. Habeas corpus is no longer available to resurrect a defaulted sentencing claim.
Defense counsel and courts must pay careful attention to post-conviction deadlines and procedures. Missing the Rule 24.035 window forfeits the claim.
The overruling of Zinna and Osowski removes any lingering assumption that excessive sentences are jurisdictional.
It reinforces the finality of guilty pleas and the importance of record clarity regarding sentencing exposure and factual bases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Alford Plea: A guilty plea in which the defendant professes innocence but admits enough facts to allow the court to find probable cause. It carries the same consequences as a straight guilty plea.
Rule 24.035 Post-Conviction Motion: An exclusive state procedural device for challenging convictions or sentences that are unlawful, including those exceeding statutory limits, after a guilty plea or conviction.
Procedural Default: When a petitioner fails to raise a claim at the prescribed time or in the prescribed manner (e.g., in direct appeal or Rule 24.035), that claim is usually waived.
Manifest Injustice Gateway: A narrow exception to procedural default in habeas corpus, requiring proof that the petitioner is actually innocent or that fundamental rights were violated so severely that justice demands review.
Jurisdictional vs. Non-Jurisdictional Errors: Jurisdictional errors go to the court’s power to hear a case (subject-matter or personal jurisdiction). Sentencing mistakes, even if the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum, are non-jurisdictional and correctable by normal appellate or Rule 24.035 procedures.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Missouri’s decision in In re Branson establishes that an excessive sentence is not a jurisdictional defect and cannot circumvent the procedural default rules of post-conviction relief. Rule 24.035 remains the exclusive remedy for challenging unlawful sentences after a guilty plea. Habeas corpus cannot serve as a backdoor to revive defaulted claims of excess sentencing. Practitioners must ensure all sentencing challenges are timely raised on direct appeal or in a Rule 24.035 motion, lest they be irretrievably waived.