Ott Law Firm

Danielle Sanford vs. State of Missouri

Decision date: July 26, 2011WD72291

Parties & Roles

Judges

Opinion Author
Karen King Mitchell
Trial Court Judge
R. Brent Elliott

Disposition

Reversed

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar criminal law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Syllabus

DANIELLE SANFORD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WD72291

OPINION FILED:

July 26, 2011

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Daviess County, Missouri The Honorable R. Brent Elliott, Judge

Before Division I: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, and Alok Ahuja and Karen King Mitchell, Judges

This is a Rule 24.035 case. The movant timely filed her pro se motion, which the motion court denied. However, the court never appointed counsel to file an amended motion or otherwise comply with Rule 24.035(e) and (g), even though it is undisputed that the movant is indigent. The court clearly erred in not appointing counsel, and the State concedes that the judgment should be reversed. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand with instructions to appoint counsel.

2 Facts and Procedural Background Appellant Danielle Sanford pled guilty to two counts of first-degree endangering the welfare of a child, section 568.045. 1 The court accepted the plea, suspended imposition of any sentence, and placed Sanford on five years' probation. Subsequently, the Missouri State Board of Probation and Parole informed the court that Sanford had violated the terms of her probation. The court held a hearing and confirmed that Sanford had violated the terms of her probation. Accordingly, the court entered judgment revoking the probation and sentenced Sanford to five years' imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to run consecutively. Sanford timely filed a pro se Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct the Judgment or Sentence ("Rule 24.035 motion"). The Rule 24.035 motion included an affidavit stating that Sanford is indigent. The court denied the Rule 24.035 motion without appointing counsel. Sanford filed her notice of appeal, and the court then found that she was indigent and entered an order permitting her to prosecute this appeal as a poor person. On appeal, Sanford is represented by the appellate public defender. Standard of Review On appeal from the motion court's judgment disposing of a Rule 24.035 motion, our review is limited to determining whether the findings and conclusions of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). We will find that the motion court clearly erred when, after reviewing the entire record, we are left with the definite and firm impression that a mistake has been made. Forrest v. State, 290 S.W.3d 704, 708 (Mo. banc 2009). Legal Analysis Sanford argues that the motion court erred in denying her Rule 24.035 motion without first appointing counsel. We agree.

1 Statutory citation is to RSMo (2000), as updated by the 2010 cumulative supplement.

3 "When an indigent movant files a pro se [Rule 24.035] motion, the court shall cause counsel to be appointed for the movant." Rule 24.035(e). The use of the term "shall" makes clear that, under Rule 24.035, appointment of counsel is mandatory, not discretionary. Unless the pro se motion already contains all claims known to the movant and states all facts to support the claims, the appointed counsel's task is to file an amended Rule 24.035 motion. Id. "An amended motion is a final pleading, which requires legal expertise. Counsel must be appointed for indigent movants in order to assure its proper drafting." Bennett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 448, 449 (Mo. banc 2002) (emphasis added). Here, it is undisputed that (1) Sanford timely filed her Rule 24.035 motion; (2) she is indigent; 2 and (3) the motion court failed to appoint counsel. Indeed, it is undisputed that the court clearly erred in not appointing counsel and that its judgment should be reversed. Sanford's point is therefore granted. 3

Conclusion The motion court clearly erred in ruling on the Rule 24.035 motion without first appointing counsel. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and instruct the court to appoint counsel on remand.

Karen King Mitchell, Judge

Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, and Alok Ahuja, Judge, concur.

2 Sanford included a notarized declaration of her indigency in her pro se motion; the motion court itself found Appellant to be indigent; and on appeal the State concedes that she is indigent. 3 Our disposition of Point I of Sanford's appeal renders discussion of Point II unnecessary.

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,374 words
Read opinion

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,516 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,993 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976

affirmed

Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,670 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

Read opinion