E.D. 2009) (citing section 217.337) . Thus, our General Assembly has not only,mandated that the DOC.develop rehabilitative programs, but has also plainly mandated that inmates participate in those programs as directed. We have no problem conclud-mg, therefore, that an inmate’s failure to satisfactorily complete or participate in a rehabilitative program established by the DOC constitutes the violation of a DOC “rule or regulation” as anticipated by section 558.011.5., We-have similarly held on at least two other occasions. Mitchell v. Nixon, 351 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Mo.App.W.D. 2011) (“Pursuant to section 558.011.5, the [Board] has the .statutory authority to extend [an inmate’s] conditional release date for failing to complete the sex offender program_”); Spencer, 334 S.W.3d at 569 n.8 (<HOLDING>). The Appellants’ attempt to differentiate
holding that probable cause is a complete defense to an action for false arrest holding that because sexual offenders are required to complete mosop by statute and doc policy the board is statutorily authorized to extend a conditional release date based on an inmates failure to complete the mosop recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge holding that truth is a complete defense to defamation