Jackson, J., dissenting
Switzer, 562 U. S. 521, 530 (2011); Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 356 (1964).
This is one of those rare cases. Missouri’s Revised Statute §547.031 provides a three-step process for reviewing the integrity of a conviction. First, a prosecutor can file a motion to vacate if she “has information that a convicted person… may have been erroneously convicted.” §547.031.1.
A prosecutor filed such a motion with respect to Johnson. Second, “upon the filing of [such] a motion to vacate,” the court “shall order a hearing and shall issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented.” §547.031.2. No Missouri court here has disputed that this hearing is mandatory or that it was not provided to Johnson. Third, the court must grant the motion to vacate if “the court finds there is clear and convincing evidence of… constitutional error,” after “tak[ing] into consideration” all of the evidence related to the case, including the “evidence presented at the hearing on the motion.” §547.031.3.
The Missouri Supreme Court turned this straightforward procedural statute on its head. While acknowledging that there was no motion hearing in Johnson’s case, the court assumed away that violation of the statute’s procedural requirements and denied the motion to stay on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the motion to vacate. It reasoned that “[e]ven assuming that it was error for the circuit court to overrule the Special Prosecutor’s motion to vacate Johnson’s conviction without the hearing and express findings of fact and conclusions of law,” Johnson was not entitled to a stay because the motion to vacate fell “short of the showing required by section 547.031.3, i.e., that there be ‘clear and convincing evidence’ demonstrating a ‘constitutional error at the original trial… that undermines the confidence in the judgment.’ ” Order on Motions for Stay of Execution, No. SC89168 (Nov. 20, 2022), pp. 13–14 (Order).
The Missouri Supreme Court’s reading—which skipped
