{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","party":{"slug":"state-of-missouri","displayName":"State of Missouri","totalCases":100},"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed113080:2026-03-10","opinionId":"9a1eb16d-5471-53da-b68b-9ea0ef8cdc59","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-mcgregory-appellant-113080","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113080","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-03-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"James McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault and property damage, raising two unpreserved claims of error concerning the admission of prior threats and the amount of the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund (CVC) judgment. The appellate court declined plain error review for the evidence admissibility claim, finding no manifest injustice. However, it granted plain error review for the CVC judgment, concluding the trial court erred by imposing a $46 judgment for a Class E felony, which was not authorized by the applicable statute at the time of the offense. The court modified the CVC judgment to $10 and affirmed the judgment as modified.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=232294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-mcgregory-appellant-113080","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38782:2026-02-25","opinionId":"f42d16a4-830c-5966-b1f7-cb4be213a97f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-russell-kenneth-clancy-appellant-d38782","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nRUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38782","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-25","year":2026,"display_summary":"Russell Kenneth Clancy appealed his conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim, arguing there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted recklessly when he punched a law enforcement officer. The incident occurred during an altercation where Clancy, who was intoxicated, became belligerent and resisted arrest. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the trial testimony and body camera footage provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude Clancy acted recklessly.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-russell-kenneth-clancy-appellant-d38782","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"mo:sc101218:2026-02-24","opinionId":"48e594d4-de4b-58d8-b1ec-42b01ba8dee9","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-willis-peters-appellant-101218","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101218","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-24","year":2026,"display_summary":"James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing the state failed to prove one of his prior offenses was an intoxication-related traffic offense (IRTO) for chronic offender enhancement. The circuit court had sentenced Peters as a chronic offender based on four prior IRTOs, including a 2002 municipal offense. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing, holding that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 2002 offense involved physically driving or operating a vehicle, as required by the current definition of \"driving\" for IRTOs.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-willis-peters-appellant-101218","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113261:2026-02-17","opinionId":"d93ee86c-ba6f-5fc9-937d-0965c6252917","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gerald-r-nytes-appellant-113261","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113261","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-17","year":2026,"display_summary":"Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction after a bench trial for violating a full order of protection. He argued the State's evidence was insufficient to prove he had legal or actual notice of the order. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of Nytes's presence at the order of protection hearing and his prior guilty pleas for violating the same order were sufficient to establish actual notice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231041","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-gerald-r-nytes-appellant-113261","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113172:2026-02-17","opinionId":"ca60c553-a3e7-54bd-8b3f-141be5118385","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-elizabeth-m-speer-appellant-113172","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113172","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-17","year":2026,"display_summary":"Elizabeth M. Speer appealed her convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault, arguing the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and did not obtain a written waiver of counsel. The State conceded error on both points. The appellate court reversed Speer's convictions and sentences, remanding the case for a new trial, holding that the trial court failed to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment and Section 600.051.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231038","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-elizabeth-m-speer-appellant-113172","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112976:2026-02-17","opinionId":"4a907936-c5a1-5441-8ec9-edce2518f829","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-d-walton-appellant-112976","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112976","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-17","year":2026,"display_summary":"Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made to police. Walton contended his Miranda waiver was involuntary due to police deception about the true nature of the investigation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Walton's waiver was voluntary because he was informed of his rights, understood them, and continued speaking with detectives, consistent with prior case law.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231035","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-d-walton-appellant-112976","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113233:2026-02-10","opinionId":"e4a57fae-8094-567f-863a-75f192cf3669","slug":"daniel-t-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113233","caseName":"Daniel T. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113233","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Daniel Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his mental state. Williams contended that such an investigation could have revealed mental health issues relevant to a diminished capacity defense. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that Williams failed to demonstrate how additional information about his mental state would have aided his defense or satisfied the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230835","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-t-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113233","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113255:2026-02-10","opinionId":"c07b96f9-e129-5551-baaf-1204638e366b","slug":"derrie-s-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113255","caseName":"Derrie S. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113255","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-10","year":2026,"display_summary":"Appellant Derrie Williams appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Williams argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to allow him to testify and for failing to investigate and call two witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that its findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous regarding both claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230836","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/derrie-s-williams-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113255","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"mo:sc101152:2026-02-03","opinionId":"4993f108-9a01-5508-9b69-5087bb46d5b4","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-keith-eggleston-appellant-101152","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Keith Eggleston, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101152","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"James Eggleston appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly possessed methamphetamine found in a vehicle he was driving. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, clarifying that the plain language of the relevant statutes does not require \"additional incriminating evidence\" to establish possession in shared spaces, thereby rejecting prior case law. The Court found sufficient evidence that Eggleston was in actual possession of the methamphetamine and acted knowingly, supported by circumstantial evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-keith-eggleston-appellant-101152","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38798:2026-02-03","opinionId":"61e9a65d-bab3-54ea-8990-671bdf26d4a8","slug":"carl-cameron-ferguson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38798","caseName":"CARL CAMERON FERGUSON, Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38798","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Carl Cameron Ferguson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call a specific witness. The motion court denied relief, finding Ferguson's pro se motion facially deficient and, alternatively, that the decision not to call the witness was reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, agreeing that the pro se motion was deficient and that the trial counsel's decision was a matter of reasonable trial strategy.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carl-cameron-ferguson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38798","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"mo:sc101172:2026-02-03","opinionId":"cfcbbb06-e60d-5ad6-8dc4-b10b4720bcd1","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-amanda-joy-rogers-appellant-101172","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Amanda Joy Rogers, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101172","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-02-03","year":2026,"display_summary":"Amanda Rogers appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of her motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The Court held that the state presented sufficient evidence of Rogers' knowing possession of the firearm, rejecting the requirement for 'additional incriminating evidence' in joint possession cases. It also found that law enforcement had probable cause for the vehicle search based on an informant's tip and other circumstances.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-amanda-joy-rogers-appellant-101172","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113148:2026-01-27","opinionId":"fb3feabf-ed26-5817-bd70-bdffe5790d00","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-k-duncan-sr-appellant-113148","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. David K. Duncan, Sr., Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113148","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-27","year":2026,"display_summary":"David K. Duncan, Sr. was convicted of three counts of first-degree statutory rape and six counts of second-degree child molestation of his granddaughter. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that the trial court properly admitted evidence of Duncan's statement to the victim that he had sex with his wife at the same age as the victim, ruling this was logically and legally relevant and not improper propensity evidence.","primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=230274","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-k-duncan-sr-appellant-113148","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113257:2026-01-13","opinionId":"54f308ed-bb84-5c41-b22f-2389f0293b73","slug":"harry-little-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113257","caseName":"Harry Little, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113257","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Harry Little appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief from convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an alibi witness and failing to argue a specific alternate perpetrator. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decisions were reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the alibi witness's testimony was not viable and that presenting a general alternate perpetrator theory was a reasonable strategic choice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229838","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/harry-little-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113257","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"mo:sc100874:2026-01-13","opinionId":"256384ec-b1e1-5cf5-b792-4e5a34a6cf1f","slug":"craig-m-wood-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100874","caseName":"Craig M. Wood, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100874","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Craig M. Wood appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief from his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for the abduction and murder of Hailey Owens. Wood raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial bias. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding its findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous and that Wood failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance or prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229859","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/craig-m-wood-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100874","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112791:2026-01-13","opinionId":"2844b7d2-d205-5b01-b723-faea0d5c391b","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffrey-lematty-appellant-112791","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Lematty, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112791","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"Jeffrey Lematty appealed his convictions for first-degree rape and second-degree burglary, alleging instructional errors, improper admission and exclusion of evidence, and insufficient evidence for burglary. The appellate court reversed Lematty's second-degree burglary conviction, finding plain error in the verdict directing instruction that misstated the law by potentially excusing the State from proving the unlawful entry element. The court affirmed the first-degree rape conviction and all other challenged aspects of the trial court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229834","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffrey-lematty-appellant-112791","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113311:2026-01-13","opinionId":"e405af4d-48ad-5af3-96e6-c652d1492db0","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-m-grimes-appellant-113311","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Christopher M. Grimes, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113311","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-13","year":2026,"display_summary":"The court affirmed the defendant's conviction on two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, finding sufficient evidence that the defendant applied physical force that overcame the victim's reasonable resistance, constituting forcible compulsion. The defendant's arguments that the state's evidence was insufficient to prove forcible compulsion were rejected.","primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229839","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-m-grimes-appellant-113311","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113160:2026-01-06","opinionId":"d1349662-a11d-505d-8895-714e94b61f5d","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-dustin-robinson-appellant-113160","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Dustin Robinson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113160","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2026-01-06","year":2026,"display_summary":"Dustin Robinson appealed his conviction for felony resisting arrest, arguing that resisting arrest on an outstanding felony warrant should be classified as a misdemeanor, not a felony, under section 575.150.5(1) RSMo. Robinson contended that only warrantless arrests for a felony, or arrests on warrants for failure to appear or probation violations in felony cases, could support a felony resisting arrest charge. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that an arrest made pursuant to a warrant for a felony offense is still considered an arrest \"for a felony\" under the statute, regardless of whether the arrest was made with or without a warrant.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229474","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-dustin-robinson-appellant-113160","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113150:2025-12-30","opinionId":"a22c9abc-e1e5-59d3-b995-3fab89f37e3c","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jayelyn-z-rivers-appellant-113150","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jayelyn Z. Rivers, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113150","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jayelyn Rivers appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and resisting arrest, arguing that the State's evidence was insufficient to support the unlawful possession conviction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to infer Rivers had actual, knowing possession of the firearm. This evidence included the gun's location under his seat, his superior access, its visibility, and his flight from law enforcement.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jayelyn-z-rivers-appellant-113150","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"mo:sc101071:2025-12-29","opinionId":"d2463849-d8a6-5968-94f1-7a1562f12608","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-neil-burkett-appellant-101071","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Richard Neil Burkett, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101071","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Richard Neil Burkett was convicted of first-degree assault after a jury trial. On appeal, Burkett contended the circuit court erred by not submitting a self-defense instruction and by not giving a curative instruction regarding the State's closing argument. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining to review Burkett's unpreserved claims for plain error because he caused or contributed to the alleged errors and his claims were ill-suited for plain error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-neil-burkett-appellant-101071","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"mo:sc101104:2025-12-29","opinionId":"25d92d9f-5bb6-59eb-9ab7-b082f2ebb7a0","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-isis-s-jones-appellant-101104","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Isis S. Jones, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC101104","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Isis S. Jones was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon after a jury trial. On appeal, Jones argued the circuit court plainly erred by accepting a jury verdict based on an instruction that varied from the charged offense, leading to an improper sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining plain error review because Jones failed to establish that the alleged error was \"facially evident, obvious, and clear,\" as shooting \"into\" a vehicle necessarily subsumes shooting \"at\" it.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-isis-s-jones-appellant-101104","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"mo:sc101178:2025-12-29","opinionId":"d3a2f1f8-f64a-5f69-8e10-c93e36771de2","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-israel-barrera-respondent-101178","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Israel Barrera, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC101178","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-12-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Israel Barrera moved to suppress urine test results obtained via two warrants in a sexual molestation case. The circuit court sustained the motion, finding a lack of probable cause for Warrant 1 and that the good-faith exception did not apply. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the suppression order, holding that the affidavit for Warrant 1 provided a substantial basis for probable cause, particularly due to corroborative details of the victim's medical examination. The Court affirmed that Warrant 1 authorized both seizure and search, rendering Warrant 2 unnecessary, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229335","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-israel-barrera-respondent-101178","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112946:2025-12-23","opinionId":"f5e1bb3c-8dbc-59cc-a360-505566d214ea","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-emonne-w-dillon-appellant-112946","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Emonne W. Dillon, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112946","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Emonne Dillon appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action, stemming from a fatal shooting that occurred during a brawl. Dillon argued the trial court erred by refusing his non-MAI instructions on imperfect self-defense, denying his motion to strike a juror for cause, and admitting hearsay testimony. The appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions, juror selection, or the admission of the challenged statement.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-emonne-w-dillon-appellant-112946","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112275:2025-12-23","opinionId":"c9202e6b-6d0f-55f7-a21d-8caa8ab2e623","slug":"demetrius-l-davis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112275","caseName":"Demetrius L. Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112275","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Demetrius L. Davis appealed the motion court's denial of his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The State argued the motion court erred in reviewing Davis's untimely amended motion after finding he was abandoned by unappointed post-conviction counsel. The appellate court agreed, holding that the abandonment doctrine applies only to appointed counsel, not counsel who voluntarily entered an appearance. Therefore, the motion court lacked authority to review the untimely amended motion and should have only reviewed the timely filed pro se motion. The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final judgment, and the case was remanded for adjudication of the pro se claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229234","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/demetrius-l-davis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112275","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113083:2025-12-16","opinionId":"15acb59f-1b95-52c5-b957-1c5d4d0f7c0a","slug":"billy-wagner-movantappellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondentrespondent-113083","caseName":"Billy Wagner, Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113083","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Billy Wagner appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court had applied the incorrect version of Rule 29.15(g) to determine the deadline for filing an amended motion and failed to adjudicate all claims in Wagner's pro se motion. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment, holding that the version of Rule 29.15 in effect at sentencing governs and that the abandonment doctrine does not apply to retained counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","other","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228697","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/billy-wagner-movantappellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondentrespondent-113083","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112762:2025-12-16","opinionId":"c92b5cc2-c426-5520-b878-4f2e407256c4","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shawn-ray-hollingshead-appellant-112762","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Shawn Ray Hollingshead, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112762","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Shawn Ray Hollingshead appealed his jury convictions for statutory sodomy and child molestation, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an undisclosed rebuttal witness to counter his alibi defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Hollingshead failed to provide proper notice of his intent to rely on an alibi defense, which relieved the State of its duty to disclose the rebuttal witness. Furthermore, the court found that his wife's testimony did not constitute a true alibi because it did not account for his whereabouts for the entire charging period.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228694","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shawn-ray-hollingshead-appellant-112762","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112921:2025-12-09","opinionId":"32d73aa0-fa8c-5b56-afba-55f4636e3939","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-preston-gremminger-appellant-112921","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Preston Gremminger, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112921","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Preston Gremminger was convicted by a jury of two counts of statutory sodomy, one count of statutory rape, and two counts of incest, receiving a 128-year prison sentence. On appeal, Gremminger claimed the circuit court erred by excluding evidence of a victim's prior sexual abuse allegation, improperly admitting propensity evidence, and rejecting lesser-included offense instructions. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on these issues.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228374","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-preston-gremminger-appellant-112921","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113203:2025-12-02","opinionId":"fa56099d-4a94-5146-b13a-49353cbd613d","slug":"barry-e-anderson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113203","caseName":"Barry E. Anderson, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113203","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Barry E. Anderson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion court had found abandonment by counsel and reviewed his untimely amended motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the amended motion was untimely because the abandonment doctrine does not apply to unappointed counsel, and the motion court's post hoc appointment was invalid. However, the court affirmed the judgment because all claims in Anderson's timely pro se motion had been properly adjudicated.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/barry-e-anderson-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113203","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112852:2025-12-02","opinionId":"d8b3ac30-ce1e-5d04-ba28-500b212e2638","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eric-a-pritchett-appellant-112852","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Eric A. Pritchett, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112852","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-12-02","year":2025,"display_summary":"Eric A. Pritchett appealed his convictions for stealing and two counts of burglary, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the value of stolen goods, the admission of screenshots under the best evidence rule, and the enhancement of his sentence as a persistent offender. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence to prove the value of the stolen laptops exceeded $25,000, and determined the best evidence rule was not violated because witnesses testified only about admitted screenshots, not the original unavailable video. The court also declined plain error review for the sentence enhancement, noting Pritchett was on notice of the State's intent.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228696","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-eric-a-pritchett-appellant-112852","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112740:2025-11-25","opinionId":"5a3869a8-829e-5e14-ba70-6626baa67b92","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-oscar-m-ward-iii-appellant-112740","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Oscar M. Ward III, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112740","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Oscar Ward was convicted of kidnapping and domestic assault. On appeal, Ward argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting a computer-enhanced 911 call that was disclosed to the defense only one week before trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the late disclosure did not result in fundamental unfairness or prejudice to Ward, especially since he did not request a continuance and the evidence was cumulative of other testimony.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227776","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-oscar-m-ward-iii-appellant-112740","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112696:2025-11-12","opinionId":"4cf5a82b-33b5-516f-ab4b-951cf012d31e","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-danielle-lechocki-appellant-112696","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Danielle Lechocki, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112696","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Danielle Lechocki appealed her conviction for attempted unlawful use of a weapon, arguing the trial court erred by refusing a self-defense jury instruction. She contended there was substantial evidence to support such an instruction, including conflicting testimony about who initiated the confrontation and her reasonable fear of imminent unlawful force given her physical condition. The appellate court agreed, reversing the conviction and remanding the case for retrial, holding that the evidence required a self-defense instruction and that factual issues regarding the degree of force and its justification were for the jury.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-danielle-lechocki-appellant-112696","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113032:2025-11-12","opinionId":"f739e9e2-6aab-5119-88b0-aa2027f75f85","slug":"david-o-love-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113032","caseName":"David O. Love, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113032","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"David Love appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for making gang references during voir dire, failing to include a limiting instruction for prior bad acts in jury instructions, and failing to quash the jury panel due to a fair cross-section violation. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that while his amended motion was untimely and counsel abandoned him, remand was unnecessary, and Love failed to prove his ineffective assistance claims.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227415","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-o-love-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113032","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87238:2025-11-12","opinionId":"22b45ab0-334e-527f-b0ac-1c651aed4fe5","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-patrick-logan-pulse-d87238","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nPatrick Logan Pulse","caseNumber":"WD87238","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Patrick Logan Pulse appealed his convictions for first-degree assault and armed criminal action, stemming from shooting a Lyft driver, arguing self-defense at trial. On appeal, Pulse challenged the admission of three pieces of evidence: a video of his arrest, a video of him in a police car post-arrest, and his hospital records showing controlled substances. He also claimed instructional error for the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the defense of others. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment, finding no merit to Pulse's claims of error regarding evidence admission or instructional error.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-patrick-logan-pulse-d87238","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87377:2025-11-12","opinionId":"5a507ea8-23e6-57a7-abb8-fc794484cd3c","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-jonathan-edward-rainey-d87377","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nJonathan Edward Rainey","caseNumber":"WD87377","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jonathan Rainey appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the sufficiency of evidence for the firearm charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that the protective search of Rainey's person and vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion, and the subsequent search was supported by probable cause, thus the evidence was admissible. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227236","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-jonathan-edward-rainey-d87377","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"mo:sc100967:2025-11-04","opinionId":"94298e62-47a0-5106-8990-dd89cddc7d96","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-respondent-100967","caseName":"State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Amanda M. Mire, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100967","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"The State of Missouri brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the circuit court's order sustaining Amanda Mire's motion to suppress certain statements and evidence in a driving while intoxicated case. The circuit court initially made a docket entry on February 26, 2024, suppressing the evidence, and later entered a more formal \"judgment and order\" on March 11, 2024. The State filed its notice of appeal on March 11, 2024. The Missouri Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the February 26 docket entry was the operative order, and the State failed to file its notice of appeal within the statutory five-day period from that date.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227014","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-amanda-m-mire-respondent-100967","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87231:2025-10-28","opinionId":"11cba625-1bca-5240-bdbe-61ddaa2d6027","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-ashontai-samuel-wallace-d87231","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nAshontai Samuel Wallace","caseNumber":"WD87231","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ashontai Wallace appealed his convictions for first-degree robbery, two counts of first-degree kidnapping, and three counts of armed criminal action, arguing the evidence was insufficient. The appellate court affirmed all convictions. It found sufficient independent evidence to establish the corpus delicti for robbery and that the victims were confined for a \"substantial period\" for the kidnapping charges, rejecting Wallace's \"merely incidental\" argument based on a recent Supreme Court ruling.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226693","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-ashontai-samuel-wallace-d87231","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113024:2025-10-28","opinionId":"b908d09d-08cc-56e4-a084-6f07ad1f8375","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-mary-j-barton-appellant-113024","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Mary J. Barton, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113024","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-28","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary Barton appealed her conviction for false impersonation, arguing there was insufficient evidence that the victim relied on her pretended official authority. The trial court had found Barton guilty after a bench trial, sentencing her to 180 days in jail. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the victim's actions, both during and after the phone call, demonstrated reliance on Barton's representation as a law enforcement investigator.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226795","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-mary-j-barton-appellant-113024","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113096:2025-10-21","opinionId":"7be37459-ae35-5874-a185-fd6ae476fb70","slug":"ralph-alexander-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113096","caseName":"Ralph Alexander, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113096","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ralph Alexander appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Alexander claimed counsel failed to investigate an alibi witness, failed to file a motion in limine to exclude prior bad acts evidence, and improperly elicited hearsay testimony. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding its conclusions were not clearly erroneous and that Alexander failed to demonstrate prejudice or that counsel's actions fell outside the range of reasonable professional assistance.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226615","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/ralph-alexander-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113096","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113128:2025-10-21","opinionId":"69413a86-b50a-5a46-9db9-55084ce0c00d","slug":"timothy-perkins-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113128","caseName":"Timothy Perkins, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113128","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-21","year":2025,"display_summary":"Timothy Perkins appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach the victim about alleged habits of stealing and lying in his statutory sodomy trial. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decision was reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that counsel's choice not to pursue that specific line of questioning was a reasonable strategic decision, especially given the trial court's prior rulings and counsel's alternative methods of challenging credibility.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/timothy-perkins-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113128","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38707:2025-10-15","opinionId":"aae93517-8997-586a-81da-301d803fce98","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-guthrie-appellant-d38707","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nJAMES GUTHRIE, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38707","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-10-15","year":2025,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-guthrie-appellant-d38707","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87379:2025-10-07","opinionId":"2a5b41e8-b777-5a53-9007-32247035b8ec","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-cody-boehmer-d87379","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nCody Boehmer","caseNumber":"WD87379","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-10-07","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cody Boehmer pleaded guilty to property damage and trespass, and the circuit court sentenced him. Later, the court entered a separate order requiring Boehmer to pay restitution. Boehmer appealed, arguing the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution order after sentencing. The Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals agreed, vacating the restitution order because the circuit court had exhausted its jurisdiction upon imposing the original sentence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"vacated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225654","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-cody-boehmer-d87379","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112788:2025-09-30","opinionId":"598c52c9-874b-5c89-811e-3b7a4f4eb524","slug":"mose-l-martin-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112788","caseName":"Mose L. Martin, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112788","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mose Martin appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 amended motion for post-conviction relief, following his conviction for first-degree assault. Martin claimed his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a lay witness to impeach the victim's credibility and for failing to call an expert witness to testify about memory impairment caused by crack cocaine use. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that trial counsel's actions were reasonable and that Martin failed to demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mose-l-martin-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112788","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86942:2025-09-30","opinionId":"c038400f-d293-5d4d-8448-d6dbc29d6342","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-howard-kristopher-moots-d86942","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nHoward Kristopher Moots","caseNumber":"WD86942","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-09-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Howard Kristopher Moots appealed his convictions for statutory sodomy and child molestation, arguing the circuit court's written judgment incorrectly stated his sentence as \"999 years\" when the oral pronouncement was \"life in prison.\" The State conceded the error. The appellate court remanded the case to the circuit court to enter a corrected written judgment reflecting the oral pronouncement of life in prison for the statutory sodomy counts, affirming the judgment in all other respects.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-howard-kristopher-moots-d86942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38242:2025-09-25","opinionId":"1468450f-6b40-5dd6-896a-36ce7a8dee8d","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-orlando-c-moore-sr-appellant-d38242","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nORLANDO C. MOORE, SR., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38242","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Orlando Moore appealed his convictions for second-degree domestic assault and first-degree property damage following a bench trial. Moore challenged the admission of the victim's statements to police under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearsay exception and raised a Sixth Amendment confrontation-clause claim. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the victim's statements because Moore's manipulative actions caused her unavailability, and declined plain error review of the unpreserved confrontation-clause claim.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225214","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-orlando-c-moore-sr-appellant-d38242","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112866:2025-09-23","opinionId":"70c302a5-4646-50a4-8600-ad2a3c3cc4ef","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-janaya-neither-appellant-112866","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Janaya Neither, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112866","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Janaya Neither appealed her conviction for assault in the second degree and armed criminal action, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting social media posts without an adequate foundation, which she claimed resulted in prejudice. The State charged Appellant with assault and armed criminal action for slashing T.G. with a knife, while Appellant claimed self-defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the social media posts, as there was sufficient evidence of their authenticity. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if there was an error in admission, Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice warranting reversal.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225076","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-janaya-neither-appellant-112866","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112914:2025-09-23","opinionId":"c93e72ae-0625-5697-bd72-6bd2b0558c31","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kevin-p-coplin-appellant-112914","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Kevin P. Coplin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112914","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kevin P. Coplin was convicted by a Jefferson County jury of child molestation first degree. On appeal, Coplin argued the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his request for a mistrial after the State asked a question on re-direct examination that he claimed improperly implied a prior bad act. The Eastern District affirmed the conviction, holding that the defense had \"opened the door\" to the line of questioning, the question was unanswered, and any potential prejudice was negated by jury instructions and the jury's mixed verdict.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225077","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-kevin-p-coplin-appellant-112914","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112755:2025-09-23","opinionId":"97f418e2-82ce-5ac8-b0c2-39cdc866a3be","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shyheim-el-mumin-appellant-112755","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Shyheim El-Mumin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112755","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Shyheim El-Mumin appealed his convictions for assault, armed criminal action, unlawful use of a weapon, and property damage, challenging the admission of firearm examiner testimony and the trial court's persistent offender finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found the challenge to the firearm examiner's testimony unpreserved and waived, and held that the defendant's admission to prior felonies committed at different times obviated the need for a jury finding on persistent offender status, even under Erlinger v. United States.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225075","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-shyheim-el-mumin-appellant-112755","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38593:2025-09-22","opinionId":"a59aeaf0-b1cf-568f-b51b-9355cab2447a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-andrew-j-sales-jr-appellant-d38593","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nANDREW J. SALES, JR., Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38593","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Andrew J. Sales, Jr., a prior and persistent felony drug offender, appealed his convictions for drug trafficking, possession, tampering with evidence, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, following a jury trial where he represented himself. Sales challenged the probable cause for a search warrant, the sufficiency of the evidence regarding chain of custody and drug paraphernalia, and claimed he was denied his right to counsel. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in any of his claims, including that his waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary, and that the evidence was sufficient.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","search-and-seizure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=225054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-andrew-j-sales-jr-appellant-d38593","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112942:2025-09-09","opinionId":"d38e2f22-ffac-52f9-a60c-8e67129984a0","slug":"christopher-l-russell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112942","caseName":"Christopher L. Russell, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112942","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Russell appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an alibi witness and for not objecting to prejudicial body camera audio. The motion court denied his claims after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no error in its conclusions regarding trial counsel's reasonable strategy and lack of prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-l-russell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112801:2025-09-09","opinionId":"62dcceec-1be4-5b07-b3f5-231d09e949b7","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-ledra-craig-appellant-112801","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Ledra Craig, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112801","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-09-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"Ledra Craig appealed his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and armed criminal action, following a jury trial. Craig argued the trial court erred by not removing a juror who recognized a witness and potentially saw him in shackles, and by not sua sponte intervening during the prosecutor's closing argument. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in retaining the juror and no plain error in the prosecutor's remarks.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224515","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-ledra-craig-appellant-112801","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38589:2025-08-29","opinionId":"620053de-4a19-54f4-8c5c-ec4f6bf7309a","slug":"christina-n-knapp-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d38589","caseName":"CHRISTINA N. KNAPP, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38589","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christina N. Knapp appealed the denial of her Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, claiming her plea counsel coerced her into pleading guilty, rendering her plea unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary. The motion court denied relief, finding plea counsel's testimony credible and that Knapp's plea was voluntary. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the motion court did not clearly err because the plea hearing record and counsel's testimony refuted Knapp's claims of coercion and ineffective assistance of counsel.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=224294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christina-n-knapp-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respond-d38589","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86611:2025-08-26","opinionId":"e7a9fc91-049c-56c6-83ff-369ae4045da4","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-maggie-p-ybarra-d86611","caseName":"State of Missouri \nvs.\nMaggie P Ybarra","caseNumber":"WD86611","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-08-26","year":2025,"display_summary":"Maggie Ybarra appealed her convictions for multiple felonies, including murder, harassment, attempted child enticement, sexual misconduct, and tampering with evidence, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to sever her trial from a co-defendant. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. It found that Ybarra's argument on appeal was not preserved and, even under plain error review, she failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion or prejudice, especially given the jury's ability to distinguish evidence as shown by its mixed verdict.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223753","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-maggie-p-ybarra-d86611","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38062:2025-08-20","opinionId":"466b9c03-6ac8-51f4-851f-20fe035f9185","slug":"martin-priest-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38062","caseName":"MARTIN PRIEST, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38062","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Martin Priest appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, which sought to set aside his 1984 first-degree murder conviction based on claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Priest argued his counsel failed to impeach key witnesses and exclude tainted identification evidence. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial of relief, finding its decision was not clearly erroneous.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223653","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/martin-priest-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38062","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38558:2025-08-12","opinionId":"4f6011d5-154b-5901-b683-a5d1d78f1866","slug":"donald-wayne-mcmannis-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d38558","caseName":"DONALD WAYNE McMANNIS, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38558","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Donald McMannis appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion to set aside his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI), which was enhanced to a class B felony due to his habitual offender status. McMannis argued his sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law because the State's evidence was insufficient to prove his habitual offender status. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, holding that a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence for habitual offender status is not cognizable in a Rule 29.15 proceeding, the claim was abandoned due to lack of evidence, and the *Nowicki* opinion on prior DWI convictions does not apply retroactively.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-wayne-mcmannis-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-res-d38558","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113120:2025-08-12","opinionId":"17c4690b-a7dc-5fcd-9498-f13cf845032f","slug":"douglas-luttrell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113120","caseName":"Douglas Luttrell, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113120","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":"Douglas Luttrell appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, arguing ineffective assistance of plea counsel. The appellate court, however, determined that Luttrell's pro se motion was untimely, having been filed 182 days after sentencing, exceeding the 180-day limit. Because Luttrell failed to plead facts demonstrating a recognized exception to the timeliness rule, the court concluded that neither it nor the motion court had authority to hear his claims. The judgment was vacated, and the case remanded with directions to dismiss the motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223354","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/douglas-luttrell-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-113120","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"mo:sc100847:2025-08-12","opinionId":"c60fc9d1-783b-54ac-a09c-dcf2b1812cf5","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-dustin-curtis-winter-appellant-100847","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Dustin Curtis Winter, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC100847","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-08-12","year":2025,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=223393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-dustin-curtis-winter-appellant-100847","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38514:2025-07-30","opinionId":"90d691a8-c581-5c60-9baa-3cf457dded6f","slug":"glenda-m-young-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38514","caseName":"GLENDA M. YOUNG, Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38514","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Glenda Young appealed the denial of her Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Young argued that the motion court erred by failing to conduct an abandonment hearing after her amended motion was untimely filed. The appellate court vacated the motion court's denial of postconviction relief and remanded the case, holding that the motion court clearly erred by not conducting the required abandonment hearing.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222854","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/glenda-m-young-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38514","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86932:2025-07-29","opinionId":"4049704e-2913-5b58-a496-28faec9390f1","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-michael-w-myers-d86932","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nMichael W. Myers","caseNumber":"WD86932","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Michael W. Myers appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree assault, and armed criminal action, challenging a jury instruction variance and a discrepancy between his oral and written sentences. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no plain error in the jury instruction regarding transferred intent, as Myers was on notice of this theory and failed to show prejudice. However, the court reversed and remanded for a nunc pro tunc amendment to correct the written judgment, which incorrectly stated that certain sentences were to run consecutively when the oral pronouncement was silent, meaning they should run concurrently.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222555","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-michael-w-myers-d86932","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112815:2025-07-29","opinionId":"d6eba03d-dc6b-512c-85a3-0dc67460e698","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-narvel-s-harmon-appellant-112815","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Narvel S. Harmon, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112815","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Narvel Harmon appealed his conviction for first-degree harassment, arguing the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of a \"trigger-like\" gesture he made during his preliminary hearing. He contended the gesture was speculative as a threat and more prejudicial than probative. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the gesture was admissible as a threat toward the victims, demonstrating consciousness of guilt, and thus the circuit court did not err.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222614","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-narvel-s-harmon-appellant-112815","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86606:2025-07-29","opinionId":"dc5cabf9-5466-578b-a0a6-f9899dde82ae","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-nancy-russell-d86606","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nNancy Russell","caseNumber":"WD86606","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Nancy Russell appealed her convictions and sentences for four counts of first-degree domestic assault and four counts of armed criminal action. Russell contended the circuit court plainly erred by allowing a treating physician to offer particularized testimony that improperly vouched for the victim's credibility. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the doctor's testimony, which focused on the developmental ability of a nine-year-old to fabricate a plausible mechanism for injuries, did not improperly vouch for the victim's credibility.","primaryTopic":"evidence","topicSlugs":["evidence","criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222554","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-nancy-russell-d86606","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"medical-malpractice","label":"Medical Malpractice","href":"/practice-areas/medical-malpractice","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/medical-malpractice"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112879:2025-07-29","opinionId":"148728e1-60c7-5e01-a6bf-60d53e2077ef","slug":"justin-bonds-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112879","caseName":"Justin Bonds, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112879","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Justin Bonds appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a material witness, C.T., at his rape trial. Bonds claimed C.T.'s testimony would have provided a viable defense and led to his acquittal. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that counsel's decision not to call C.T. was reasonable trial strategy and Bonds failed to demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222616","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/justin-bonds-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112879","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38346:2025-07-25","opinionId":"b71d769b-1bb1-538a-bd25-46834126afe6","slug":"kenneth-m-sauter-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d38346","caseName":"KENNETH M. SAUTER, JR., Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38346","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Kenneth Sauter appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court determined that Sauter's amended motion was untimely due to appointed counsel's error in applying the wrong version of the rules, constituting abandonment. However, following recent precedent, the court proceeded to review the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The court affirmed the motion court's denial of relief, finding no clear error in its conclusion that sentencing counsel was not ineffective for failing to call two mitigation witnesses, as their testimony would not have added material information beyond the sentencing assessment report.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kenneth-m-sauter-jr-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respo-d38346","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38856:2025-07-23","opinionId":"86a9d94e-3a45-54a3-be1d-895535e1cfb6","slug":"bryce-davis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38856","caseName":"BRYCE DAVIS, Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38856","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bryce Davis appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed his plea counsel failed to timely file a motion to change venue, which he believed rendered his guilty plea involuntary. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, finding that Movant was aware of the untimeliness of the venue motion prior to his plea. Therefore, his attestations of satisfaction with counsel during the plea hearing were either genuine or a knowing misrepresentation, and the motion court did not clearly err in concluding his plea was voluntary.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bryce-davis-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38856","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112798:2025-07-22","opinionId":"2620fb1b-1a8a-56df-aa95-2ab453571746","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-devin-griffin-curry-appellant-112798","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Devin Griffin-Curry, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112798","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Devin Griffin-Curry appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, stemming from the fatal shooting of his neighbor. He argued violations of his speedy trial right, erroneous exclusion of diminished capacity testimony regarding ADHD, and improper acquittal-first closing arguments by the State. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no speedy trial violation due to a lack of demonstrated prejudice, no abuse of discretion in excluding the ADHD testimony as it did not negate the required mental state, and that the improper closing argument was not prejudicial given the proper jury instructions and strong evidence of guilt.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-devin-griffin-curry-appellant-112798","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"mo:sc100921:2025-07-22","opinionId":"4a42e01c-1c31-5663-a982-6c92f3f71067","slug":"cedric-dewayne-mack-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100921","caseName":"Cedric Dewayne Mack, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100921","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Cedric Mack appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. Mack's pro se motion was timely, but his amended motion, filed by a public defender who entered an appearance without appointment, was not. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the motion court's judgment, holding that the amended motion was untimely and the abandonment doctrine did not apply. Furthermore, Mack's single claim in his pro se motion had already been raised and decided in his direct appeal, precluding relitigation in a postconviction proceeding.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222376","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cedric-dewayne-mack-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100921","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"mo:sc100916:2025-07-22","opinionId":"b16e730b-05c0-5adc-8773-7225ce8ea6c5","slug":"christopher-a-scott-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100916","caseName":"Christopher A. Scott, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC100916","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-07-22","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher A. Scott appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the version of Rule 29.15 in effect at Scott's sentencing date governed his proceedings, making his public defender's amended motion untimely. The Court further clarified that the abandonment doctrine, which could excuse untimely filings, applies only to formally appointed counsel, which Scott's public defender was not.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222375","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christopher-a-scott-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-100916","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87256:2025-07-15","opinionId":"ee1c603c-4d15-50ce-9647-51735b14eac2","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-robert-beck-d87256","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nRobert Beck","caseNumber":"WD87256","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Robert Beck appealed his conviction and sentence for misdemeanor witness tampering, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish he had the purpose to influence a witness to withhold information. The appellate court found that a reasonable juror could infer Beck's purpose from his actions, including threatening the witness at the courthouse and following him to the sheriff's department to continue the threats. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222154","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-robert-beck-d87256","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112269:2025-07-15","opinionId":"785d9bb5-feef-564c-b39c-c4c4bed6779a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-leroy-m-holloway-appellant-112269","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Leroy M. Holloway, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112269","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":"Leroy Holloway appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for mistrial. Holloway contended the State violated an order in limine during closing arguments by linking his firearm possession to an uncharged shooting incident. The appellate court found the State's argument improper but affirmed the conviction, concluding that the overwhelming evidence of Holloway's guilt overcame any prejudice from the improper argument.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-leroy-m-holloway-appellant-112269","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112475:2025-07-15","opinionId":"77b94c06-dd79-52c6-b940-60e52dc2db39","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-d-otis-appellant-112475","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. John D. Otis, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112475","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-15","year":2025,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"remanded","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222195","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-d-otis-appellant-112475","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38673:2025-07-09","opinionId":"f5539cb8-9e69-5eab-b0f4-74e0c80f1bd5","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-willis-peters-appellant-d38673","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nJAMES WILLIS PETERS, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38673","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-09","year":2025,"display_summary":"James Willis Peters was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated and sentenced as a chronic offender due to prior intoxication-related traffic offenses (IRTOs). On appeal, Peters challenged the sufficiency of evidence for a 2002 municipal conviction to qualify as an IRTO, arguing it did not establish \"driving\" as defined at the time of his 2021 offense. The Southern District affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the 2002 conviction was sufficient because the definition of \"driving\" at that time no longer included the \"actual physical control\" language, and it was reasonable to infer the municipal conviction was for actual driving.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-james-willis-peters-appellant-d38673","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112413:2025-07-08","opinionId":"b959acb6-796e-51c7-a9d8-32542f288d20","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-l-bolden-appellant-112413","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Christopher L. Bolden, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112413","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christopher Bolden appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and other charges, arguing the trial court plainly erred by not sua sponte instructing the jury on defense of others. Bolden claimed he shot the victim because the victim was choking his ex-girlfriend, but later recanted this story. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals disagreed, declining to conduct plain error review because Bolden recanted the only evidence supporting a defense-of-others instruction. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221975","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-christopher-l-bolden-appellant-112413","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86308:2025-07-08","opinionId":"5b04830c-9e4e-58d5-b575-0a85d0cecffc","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-john-leland-phelps-d86308","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs.\nJohn Leland Phelps","caseNumber":"WD86308","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-07-08","year":2025,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-john-leland-phelps-d86308","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86794:2025-06-24","opinionId":"161f4509-d9d8-5d53-89c9-b2ec119e3bf8","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-renee-m-collins-d86794","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nRenee M. Collins","caseNumber":"WD86794","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Renee M. Collins appealed her convictions for sexual trafficking, endangering the welfare, neglect, and rape of her biological daughter, the Victim. Collins argued the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion to declare the Victim incompetent to testify and allowing her deposition to be published to the jury. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial court properly found the Victim met the traditional criteria for witness competence, despite her cognitive deficits, and therefore did not abuse its discretion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-renee-m-collins-d86794","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112516:2025-06-24","opinionId":"9f202d40-2880-5016-a658-045c49f863dc","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-brian-s-hensley-appellant-112516","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Brian S. Hensley, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112516","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Brian Hensley appealed his sentence for involuntary manslaughter and armed criminal action, arguing the circuit court plainly erred by obtaining extrajudicial information from jurors before sentencing and by denying him the opportunity to cross-examine them. Hensley acknowledged the issue was unpreserved and requested plain error review. The Eastern District declined to conduct plain error review, finding no evident, obvious, and clear error or manifest injustice, and affirmed the circuit court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","jury-instructions"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221534","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-brian-s-hensley-appellant-112516","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112724:2025-06-24","opinionId":"73192932-f683-5224-a8ed-f8109c92c17b","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-litel-gilmore-appellant-112724","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Litel Gilmore, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112724","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":null,"primaryTopic":null,"topicSlugs":[],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221537","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-litel-gilmore-appellant-112724","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38544:2025-06-23","opinionId":"cf2fcb24-e82a-5923-af29-d939d16e24c5","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-albert-jay-wright-appellant-d38544","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv\nALBERT JAY WRIGHT, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38544","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Albert Jay Wright was found guilty of attempted stealing after entering a victim's home, threatening her, and demanding money. On appeal, Wright argued there was insufficient evidence to prove his intent was to take money \"from the person of the victim\" because she was in her underwear and t-shirt, and he asked where her money was. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude Wright took a substantial step towards taking money from the victim's person.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221513","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-albert-jay-wright-appellant-d38544","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112885:2025-06-17","opinionId":"75063de3-e165-5e72-96d6-ff8d613d62f2","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-branden-g-collins-appellant-112885","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Branden G. Collins, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112885","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Branden Collins appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine residue and drug paraphernalia, arguing the circuit court plainly erred by not sua sponte excluding his statements made during an alleged custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. It held that Collins failed to meet his burden to show he was not Mirandized, and without evidence in the record, there was no evident, obvious, and clear error to warrant plain error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review","search-and-seizure"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221419","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-branden-g-collins-appellant-112885","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112665:2025-06-17","opinionId":"949ef899-d20c-5a36-93db-03d3bd3de42c","slug":"james-marshall-scott-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112665","caseName":"James Marshall Scott, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112665","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"James Marshall Scott appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Scott's appointed counsel filed an amended motion beyond the mandatory deadline, but the motion court considered it and denied relief without first conducting an abandonment inquiry. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the motion court was required to conduct an independent inquiry into the reason for the untimely filing to determine if counsel abandoned Scott before considering the merits of the amended motion.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221416","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-marshall-scott-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112665","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87042:2025-06-17","opinionId":"5abb1d33-07db-562b-8bcf-42d8c0d2d1a9","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-rodriguez-m-harris-jr-d87042","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nRodriguez M. Harris, Jr.","caseNumber":"WD87042","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Rodriguez M. Harris, Jr. appealed his convictions for second-degree assault, armed criminal action, and resisting arrest, following a bench trial. Harris contended the State failed to provide substantial evidence for the exact acts alleged in the information, specifically that he \"grabbed the knife\" and \"lunged toward\" an officer. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the challenged allegations were surplusage and not essential elements of the crime, and sufficient evidence supported the actual elements. The court also declined to review the State's unpreserved argument regarding concurrent sentences.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-rodriguez-m-harris-jr-d87042","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112121:2025-06-17","opinionId":"c3098454-c175-58b4-8f4e-cd134d2a3f4a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-coty-m-pilkerton-appellant-112121","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Coty M. Pilkerton, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112121","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-17","year":2025,"display_summary":"Coty M. Pilkerton appealed his convictions for misdemeanor stealing, trespass, and fraudulent use of a debit device, arguing the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss based on violations of his speedy trial rights. He claimed violations under Missouri's Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law (UMDDL) and the state and federal constitutions. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, concluding that while the delay exceeded the UMDDL's 180-day limit, it did not constitute a constitutional speedy trial violation.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-coty-m-pilkerton-appellant-112121","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38491:2025-06-13","opinionId":"a8d20a6e-2d6c-5397-a1d9-781f14b5d85c","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-john-ainsworth-appellant-d38491","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv\nDAVID JOHN AINSWORTH, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38491","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"David John Ainsworth was convicted after a bench trial of driving without a valid license and leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident. On appeal, Ainsworth argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for driving without a license because the State failed to prove he was driving on a public road. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the evidence and its reasonable inferences were sufficient to conclude Ainsworth had driven on a public road.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-david-john-ainsworth-appellant-d38491","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38483:2025-06-13","opinionId":"e767f541-b515-507b-876b-4e998be6ae6f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-vincent-estes-appellant-d38483","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent\nv.\nJOHN VINCENT ESTES, Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38483","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"John Vincent Estes appealed his conviction for statutory rape, asserting the trial court erred by allowing propensity witness testimony and by excluding evidence of the victim's prior sexual conduct under the rape shield statute. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the admission of the propensity evidence. However, it determined that the exclusion of evidence suggesting the victim's motive to fabricate, though unpreserved, constituted plain error affecting Estes's substantial right to a fair trial. Consequently, the court vacated the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial with instructions to admit the excluded evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-john-vincent-estes-appellant-d38483","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112614:2025-06-10","opinionId":"809bc6ed-c85e-5d56-b460-0f0a97d94863","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-daniel-riley-appellant-112614","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Daniel Riley, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112614","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-10","year":2025,"display_summary":"Daniel Riley appealed his convictions for felony second-degree assault, felony armed criminal action, and misdemeanor assault and driving without a valid license, stemming from a severe car crash. He argued the State failed to prove the requisite mental state for armed criminal action, that the trial court erred in denying a continuance after a late discovery disclosure, and that evidence of a post-crash sign change was improperly excluded. The appellate court affirmed all convictions and sentences, finding sufficient evidence for the armed criminal action charge and no abuse of discretion or plain error on the other points.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221235","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-daniel-riley-appellant-112614","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112288:2025-06-03","opinionId":"b9d610ba-bf75-5c8d-9a7b-f84a7a2d2e1a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-anthony-d-brooks-appellant-112288","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Anthony D. Brooks, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112288","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Anthony Brooks appealed his convictions for domestic assault, kidnapping, rape, and sodomy, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by admitting expert testimony on the cycle of domestic violence and trauma. Brooks contended that the expert's personal anecdote about memory loss from trauma constituted inadmissible particularized testimony that bolstered the victim's credibility. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, holding that the expert's testimony, including the personal example, remained generalized and did not specifically apply to the victim or comment on her veracity, thus not usurping the jury's function.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221136","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-anthony-d-brooks-appellant-112288","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112621:2025-06-03","opinionId":"a123ea74-0c46-5025-9df4-e2720d7d3a0b","slug":"bryan-k-reid-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112621","caseName":"Bryan K. Reid, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112621","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-03","year":2025,"display_summary":"Bryan Reid appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of plea counsel. He claimed counsel failed to investigate jurisdictional and evidentiary issues, and misadvised him on sex-offender registration and probation release. The appellate court affirmed the denial of relief on the investigation claims and the probation advice claim, finding them waived or refuted by the record. However, the court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the claim that counsel misadvised him about the lifetime sex-offender registration requirement, as this claim was not refuted by the record.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221137","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bryan-k-reid-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-112621","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":40,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38750:2025-05-29","opinionId":"d4de29ed-fa65-5af9-afd2-5a57f281c2e6","slug":"state-of-missouri-appellant-v-denise-margaret-lafferty-respondent-d38750","caseName":"STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant\nvs.\nDENISE MARGARET LAFFERTY, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38750","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Denise Margaret Lafferty moved to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop, arguing that a warrantless \"Terry search\" of her pockets was unconstitutional. The circuit court sustained her motion, leading to an interlocutory appeal by the State. The State contended the search was valid or, alternatively, that the evidence would have been inevitably discovered. The appellate court affirmed the suppression, holding that the officer's command to empty pockets exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry search and that the State failed to prove inevitable discovery.","primaryTopic":"search-and-seizure","topicSlugs":["search-and-seizure","criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-appellant-v-denise-margaret-lafferty-respondent-d38750","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112380:2025-05-27","opinionId":"b2d5ef63-2c1b-5875-a001-1b24a77d1a10","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-tommie-l-mcdowell-appellant-112380","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Tommie L. McDowell, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112380","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"A jury found Appellant Tommie McDowell guilty of two counts of child molestation in the first degree. On appeal, McDowell challenged the purported exclusion of his expert witness during trial, arguing it constituted plain error. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no evidence in the record that an expert witness was called or excluded, and thus no evident, obvious, and clear error to warrant plain error review.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220918","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-tommie-l-mcdowell-appellant-112380","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112330:2025-05-27","opinionId":"907e0da8-7206-52d7-82c8-5aa6c7afb4a7","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-stephen-wiley-appellant-112330","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Stephen Wiley, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112330","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Stephen Wiley appealed his convictions for first-degree assault, armed criminal action, and third-degree domestic assault. He challenged the trial court's denial of his speedy trial motion and its admission of evidence regarding a domestic assault response team and an order of protection. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no speedy trial violation and no reversible error in the evidentiary rulings, despite an abuse of discretion in admitting the order of protection evidence without proof of notice.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220917","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-stephen-wiley-appellant-112330","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112252:2025-05-27","opinionId":"cc681640-50ce-510a-86ad-b6d3a7894f1a","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-tyrone-williams-appellant-112252","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Tyrone Williams, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112252","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Tyrone Williams was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action after shooting and killing Victim. On appeal, Williams raised four points, including claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness, improper admission of a slow-motion video, an improper acquittal-first argument by the State, and a speedy trial violation. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's rulings on these issues.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220916","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-tyrone-williams-appellant-112252","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112566:2025-05-27","opinionId":"dac7c1ff-8e38-5909-af79-9f174a3a4238","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-e-calvin-appellant-112566","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Richard E. Calvin, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112566","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Richard E. Calvin appealed his jury convictions for first-degree burglary and attempted third-degree kidnapping, arguing insufficient evidence to prove his intent to kidnap for the burglary charge. Calvin unlawfully entered a neighbor's home, insisting she accompany him to fight \"werewolves,\" and became violent when she refused. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that overwhelming circumstantial evidence supported the jury's finding that Calvin intended to kidnap the victim when he forcibly entered her home.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220919","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-richard-e-calvin-appellant-112566","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86710:2025-05-27","opinionId":"c4bdcf50-8171-5d70-abaa-78df7087d769","slug":"mark-c-brandolese-v-state-of-missouri-d86710","caseName":"Mark C. Brandolese\nvs. \nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD86710","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mark Brandolese appealed the denial of his amended motion for post-conviction relief, following convictions for domestic assault and armed criminal action. He argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly address a statutorily disqualified venireperson and for failing to peremptorily strike her. Brandolese also claimed his appellate counsel was ineffective for not challenging the exclusion of an exculpatory statement. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding Brandolese failed to prove actual bias or prejudice from the venireperson's service, and that appellate counsel's performance was not deficient regarding the unpreserved evidentiary issue.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220813","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mark-c-brandolese-v-state-of-missouri-d86710","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112122:2025-05-27","opinionId":"106f4fd8-6df4-5bf9-b406-9aaa09daa003","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-j-cothran-appellant-112122","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Deandre J. Cothran, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112122","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-27","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deandre Cothran appealed his convictions for unlawful use of a weapon, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He argued the trial court erred by allowing him to proceed pro se, finding him competent without a hearing, failing to order a post-conviction mental evaluation, denying his speedy trial motion, and not declaring a mistrial for alleged Doyle violations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in any of the points raised.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deandre-j-cothran-appellant-112122","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38441:2025-05-23","opinionId":"0c156b3b-34bd-5429-b689-6216fd1168c6","slug":"jordan-c-haden-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38441","caseName":"JORDAN C. HADEN, Movant-Appellant\nv.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38441","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-23","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jordan C. Haden appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion, seeking to vacate convictions for second-degree assault and resisting arrest. He alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to properly litigate his persistent misdemeanor offender status. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's denial, holding that Haden was barred from relitigating the issue because it had previously been reviewed for plain error on direct appeal, where the court found no error.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220894","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jordan-c-haden-movant-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-respondent-d38441","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112656:2025-05-20","opinionId":"88ae5e3a-eb82-5330-8822-3ed9ef1edfa2","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-walter-dallas-appellant-112656","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Walter Dallas, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112656","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Walter Dallas appealed his convictions for stealing $25,000 or more, stealing a motor vehicle, and first-degree property damage, following a jury trial. He argued the trial court erred by allowing an FBI agent to testify about details of an ongoing investigation beyond what was necessary to explain subsequent police conduct. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, affirmed the judgment. The court found no abuse of discretion, noting the testimony was not the only evidence on the disputed factual issue and the court had limited the testimony as requested. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if there was error, Dallas was not prejudiced due to ample cumulative evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220755","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-walter-dallas-appellant-112656","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112468:2025-05-20","opinionId":"2cd3f877-6aff-5818-8bc9-58adb1dec4c2","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-todd-m-wilbert-appellant-112468","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Todd M. Wilbert, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112468","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-20","year":2025,"display_summary":"Todd Wilbert appealed his convictions for first-degree murder, armed criminal action, and trespass. He argued the circuit court plainly erred by allowing the State to comment on potential punishments during closing argument and abused its discretion by admitting victim character evidence. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that even if errors occurred, the overwhelming evidence of Wilbert's guilt precluded a finding of prejudice necessary for plain error relief.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","jury-instructions","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220754","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-todd-m-wilbert-appellant-112468","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86601:2025-05-13","opinionId":"bfc9eef2-ec6d-5514-8d2f-fc79804e70f2","slug":"state-of-missouri-v-johnathan-l-bradford-d86601","caseName":"State of Missouri\nvs. \nJohnathan L. Bradford","caseNumber":"WD86601","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-13","year":2025,"display_summary":"Johnathan L. Bradford appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, tampering, abandonment of a corpse, and assault after a jury trial. He challenged the trial court's overruling of his Batson challenge, the sufficiency of evidence for abandonment of a corpse, and the constitutionality of the abandonment of a corpse statute. The appellate court affirmed all convictions, finding no clear error in the Batson ruling, sufficient evidence to prove Bradford knew the victim was deceased, and that the constitutional challenge was waived because it was not raised at the earliest opportunity.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220433","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-v-johnathan-l-bradford-d86601","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"appellant"},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86734:2025-05-06","opinionId":"a4103721-0e46-55c7-9379-1e6b9576b9c8","slug":"patrick-ryan-powell-v-state-of-missouri-d86734","caseName":"Patrick Ryan Powell\nvs. \nState of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD86734","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-05-06","year":2025,"display_summary":"Patrick Powell was convicted of first-degree murder and armed criminal action, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. He then filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for various failures and a Giglio violation by the State. The circuit court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's denial, finding no clear error in its conclusions regarding counsel's performance, prejudice, or the materiality of the undisclosed Giglio evidence.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220294","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patrick-ryan-powell-v-state-of-missouri-d86734","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111789:2025-05-06","opinionId":"8b54aef7-87ed-5f69-8f40-d23f20227c28","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-paul-j-warren-appellant-111789","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Paul J. Warren, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111789","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-06","year":2025,"display_summary":"Paul Warren was convicted of second-degree statutory sodomy, second-degree statutory rape, and two counts of incest involving his younger sister. On appeal, Warren challenged the admissibility of the state's expert witness testimony regarding delayed disclosure of intrafamilial sexual abuse and the propriety of her testimony about treating the victim. He also argued his sentences exceeded the statutory maximum. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the expert testimony, but reversed and remanded for resentencing on the statutory sodomy and rape counts because the original sentences exceeded the legal maximum.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221133","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-paul-j-warren-appellant-111789","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112519:2025-05-06","opinionId":"9dd1496d-9631-5398-92a1-180d5389f4df","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffery-lumzy-appellant-112519","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Jeffery Lumzy, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112519","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-06","year":2025,"display_summary":"Jeffery Lumzy appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, burglary, unlawful possession of a firearm, and stealing a motor vehicle. He challenged the admission of text messages and evidence of uncharged kidnapping attempts, and argued that a jury instruction for first-degree burglary improperly lowered the State's burden of proof. The Eastern District of Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in admitting the evidence and no plain error in the jury instruction.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","jury-instructions","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220336","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-jeffery-lumzy-appellant-112519","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38254:2025-04-30","opinionId":"ed52de86-4886-5508-8d0e-c58d6dab6946","slug":"antoine-harris-applewhite-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38254","caseName":"ANTOINE HARRIS-APPLEWHITE, Appellant\nvs.\nSTATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38254","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-30","year":2025,"display_summary":"Antoine Harris-Applewhite appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction motion, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on three grounds. He claimed counsel failed to sever a firearm possession charge, failed to object to witness testimony suggesting threats, and failed to investigate other surveillance cameras. The motion court denied his claims, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no clear error in the motion court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220213","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/antoine-harris-applewhite-appellant-v-state-of-missouri-respondent-d38254","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112322:2025-04-29","opinionId":"e9cf8a4a-d3b6-5553-82e6-c958aa47742f","slug":"state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deonte-m-robinson-appellant-112322","caseName":"State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deonte M. Robinson, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112322","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-29","year":2025,"display_summary":"Deonte M. Robinson appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and armed criminal action, arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence to disprove his claim of self-defense. The trial court, in a bench trial, rejected Robinson's self-defense claim. The Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that the State provided ample evidence to show Robinson did not act in self-defense, specifically regarding his belief of imminent danger, the force used, and his failure to avoid the danger.","primaryTopic":"criminal-procedure","topicSlugs":["criminal-procedure","evidence","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220115","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-of-missouri-respondent-v-deonte-m-robinson-appellant-112322","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}],"role":"respondent"}]}