Dorothy Eskridge, Movant/Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
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.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District Case Style: Dorothy Eskridge, Movant/Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent. Case Number: 26781 Handdown Date: 08/30/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Butler County, Hon. Mark L. Richardson Counsel for Appellant: Ellen H. Flottman Counsel for Respondent: Dora A Fichter Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, Judge Opinion Vote: REMANDED. Prewitt, P.J., and Parrish, J., concur. Opinion:
Dorothy Eskridge ("Movant") pled guilty to charges of stealing and possession of a controlled substance; however, at the sentencing, Movant requested to withdraw her plea on the charge of possession. Her request was denied; she then timely filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under Rule 24.035 (FN1) and a subsequent amended motion for postconviction relief. The motion court made the following order: The Court now takes up and considers Movant's Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence, and after being fully advised, said Motion is hereby overruled and denied. Clerk to notify counsel. So Ordered. MLR The court entered no findings of fact and conclusions of law.
When ruling on a motion for postconviction relief, Rule 24.035(j) requires a motion court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held. Evans v. State, 105 S.W.3d 574, 575 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003). "Absent findings of fact and conclusions of law, meaningful appellate review is not possible." Id. The State concedes that the case must be remanded and does not address the merits of Movant's other points. This cause is remanded to the motion court for findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues presented by Movant in her Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Judgment and Sentence.
Footnotes: FN1. All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2005), unless otherwise specified.
Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
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.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
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.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
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.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976
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.