# State Ex Rel. Lute v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole

> Supreme Court of Missouri · April 17, 2007 · 218 S.W.3d 431

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754937

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE Ex Rel. Shirley LUTE, Petitioner, v. MISSOURI BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Et Al., Respondents; (Consolidated With) State Ex Rel. Lynda Ruth Branch, Petitioner, v. Jennifer Miller, Superintendent, Chillicothe Correctional Center, Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Missouri
- **Decided:** April 17, 2007
- **Citations:** 218 S.W.3d 431; 2007 Mo. LEXIS 53; 2007 WL 1122059
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Price
- **Judges:** Mary R. Russell
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754937

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating clemency "is 'a mere matter of grace' that the governor can exercise 'upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he may think proper'"
- explaining the executive clemency process in Missouri

## Opinion text

WILLIAM RAY PRICE, JR., Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The Governor is granted the power of grace by article IV, section 7 of the Missouri Constitution. When exercised, this special power, by its very nature, deserves generous and not grudging respect.
I agree with the majority that the Governor’s commutations of Ms. Lute and Ms. Branch necessarily include consideration and forgiveness of the seriousness of the two women’s crimes, and, in Ms. Branch’s case, the fact that she used a weapon and excessive force and violence. To read these two documents of commutation otherwise would render them for all practical purposes meaningless and useless. To the extent that the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole refused parole to Ms. Lute and Ms. Branch for these reasons, they erred and infringed upon the power of the Governor. Consideration of the Governor’s subsequent affidavit is unnecessary in this regard.
Article IV, section 7, however, does not include the power to parole. This power and the determination of conditions upon which parole may be granted are left exclusively to the Board of Probation and Parole. To the extent that the Governor’s affidavit indicates his evaluation of specific factors of Ms. Lute’s suitability for parole, it encroached upon the sole authority of the Board and should not be considered for that reason.
Accordingly, I concur with the majority that the Board of Probation and Parole should promptly conduct hearings for Ms. Lute and Ms. Branch giving full effect to the Governor’s commutation. I would not, however, order more.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9754937. Public record. Not legal advice.