The State’s Statutory Right to Appeal Civil Collateral Attacks Under Section 547.031 Affirmed

Introduction

This case arises from a novel post-conviction procedure codified at Missouri Revised Statutes section 547.031 (Supp. 2023), which allows a prosecuting or circuit attorney to move to vacate or set aside a criminal conviction upon clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence or constitutional error. In In re: Circuit Attorney, 22nd Judicial Circuit ex rel. Christopher Dunn (Mo. banc Apr. 15, 2025), the Supreme Court of Missouri was asked to decide whether the State of Missouri—through its attorney general—has a statutory right to appeal a circuit court’s final judgment under section 547.031. The central issue: does section 512.020(5), the general civil‐appeal statute, allow the State as an aggrieved party to pursue an appeal of a vacatur entered under section 547.031?

Parties:

Respondent: The Circuit Attorney of the 22nd Judicial Circuit (St. Louis), who filed the vacatur motion under section 547.031.
Appellant: The State of Missouri, represented by the Attorney General, seeking to appeal the circuit court’s amended judgment vacating Christopher Dunn’s convictions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Missouri Supreme Court held:

The State of Missouri is an “aggrieved party” under section 512.020(5) and thus has a statutory right to appeal any final judgment in a civil cause, including a section 547.031 vacatur.
Section 547.031.4’s grant of appeal rights to the prosecuting or circuit attorney does not displace or limit the State’s separate right under section 512.020(5).
The cause is retransferred to the Missouri Court of Appeals with instructions to overrule the circuit attorney’s motion to dismiss and proceed on the merits of the State’s appeal.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Johnson, 617 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. banc 2021): Held neither defendant nor prosecuting attorney had a right to appeal a new-trial motion filed decades after conviction, since no statute authorized it.
State ex rel. Bailey v. Sengheiser, 692 S.W.3d 20 (Mo. banc 2024): Clarified that section 547.031 proceedings are civil collateral attacks, not part of the criminal case, and stayed an erroneous release order.
State ex rel. Bailey v. Fulton, 659 S.W.3d 909 (Mo. banc 2023): Confirmed section 547.031 motions are civil in nature and fall under civil‐appeal procedures.
Meadowfresh Sols. USA, LLC v. Maple Grove Farms, LLC, 578 S.W.3d 758 (Mo. banc 2019): Stated that appeal statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of appeals.
J.I.S. v. Waldon, 791 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. banc 1990): Held a special statutory juvenile proceeding that did not provide an appeal right precluded an appeal under the general civil‐appeal statute.
Salcedo v. Salcedo, 34 S.W.3d 862 (Mo. App. 2001), superseded by statute: Interpreted a special civil‐commitment act and concluded the general civil‐appeal statute was displaced when the special act was silent on appeal rights.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Nature of Section 547.031 Proceedings: Confirming that vacatur motions under section 547.031 are civil collateral attacks on final criminal judgments, governed by civil‐appeal provisions.
Scope of Section 512.020(5): Reading the general civil‐appeal statute to grant any “party to a suit aggrieved by any judgment … in any civil cause” the right to appeal final judgments, unless prohibited or “clearly limited” by a special statute.
Interaction of Sections 547.031.4 and 512.020(5): Concluding that section 547.031.4’s explicit grant of appeal rights to prosecuting or circuit attorneys does not—in its silence as to the State—“clearly limit” the State’s existing, broader right under section 512.020(5). The Court construed both statutes harmoniously, giving meaning to each:
- Section 547.031.4 adds a specific right for prosecuting attorneys to appeal, remedying the void identified in Johnson.
- Section 512.020(5) remains the enduring source of the State’s right to appeal as an aggrieved civil litigant.

Impact

This decision has several significant effects:

Affirms the finality and reviewability of wrongful‐conviction vacatur orders, ensuring the State can seek appellate review whenever a section 547.031 motion succeeds.
Clarifies the interplay between general and special appeal statutes, reinforcing that a special‐proceeding statute must expressly limit appeal rights to override the general statute.
Provides guidance for future collateral-attack statutes by emphasizing the importance of explicit legislative language if the legislature intends to narrow appellate rights.
Assures prosecutors and defense counsel of the procedural framework and potential appellate pathways in section 547.031 cases, promoting uniformity across Missouri’s jurisdictions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Collateral attack”: A separate civil lawsuit challenging the validity of an already‐final criminal conviction, as opposed to direct appeal or habeas corpus.
“Aggrieved party”: A litigant whose legal rights or interests are directly and adversely affected by a court’s judgment.
Nolle prosequi: A formal withdrawal of criminal charges by a prosecutor—here, used after the circuit court vacated Dunn’s convictions.
“Special statutory proceeding”: A cause of action created by a specific statute (like section 547.031), which may include its own appeal rules and can displace the general civil‐appeal statute if it clearly does so.
“De novo review”: An appellate‐court standard under which the court reexamines questions of law fresh, without deferring to the trial court’s conclusions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Missouri’s decision in In re: Circuit Attorney ex rel. Christopher Dunn establishes a clear and lasting rule: the State of Missouri possesses an independent, statutory right to appeal any final vacatur under section 547.031 by virtue of section 512.020(5). Section 547.031.4’s provision for prosecuting or circuit attorneys to appeal does not supplant the State’s broader right but complements it by rectifying the specific gap identified in earlier case law. This holding underscores the principle that general appeal statutes govern civil collateral actions absent an unmistakable legislative directive to the contrary—thereby reinforcing both the finality of criminal convictions and the proper procedural avenues for correcting wrongful verdicts.