recast MoSOP from a rehabilitative to a punitive program. Point Three is denied. Conclusion The trial court’s Judgment is affirmed. All concur 1 . All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, supplemented by amendments through the current date, except as otherwise noted. 2 . The federal and Missouri constitutions prohibit ex post facto laws. U.S. Const, art. 1, sec. 10, cl. 1; Mo. Const, art I, sec. 13. See State v. Honeycutt, 421 S.W.3d 4 .App.W.D. 2010) (rejecting inmate’s claim of error in not being permitted to attend hearing on motion to dismiss his petition challenging extension of conditional release date because pursuant to section 491.230.2, detained inmates are not necessarily entitled to attend civil proceedings); Brandt v. Percich, 507 S.W.2d 951, 956-57 (Mo.App.St.L. 1974) (<HOLDING>); Rule 24.035(a) and Rule 29.15(a) which
holding that the general rules of preservation apply in probation revocation proceedings holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings holding that defendants have a right to counsel in criminal proceedings recognizing right of allocution in probation revocation proceedings holding probation revocation is not a stage of a criminal prosecution