George R. Gunn, Jr., Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, 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 Eastern District Case Style: George R. Gunn, Jr., Movant/Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 73492 Handdown Date: 05/12/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County, Hon. John W. Grimm Counsel for Appellant: Gwenda Robinson Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris, III Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Opinion: George Gunn ("Movant") appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The trial court found the motion filed out of time. Movant was convicted of receiving stolen property after a bench trial. He filed his pro se motion on August 25, 1997, one hundred and thirty-one days after being delivered to the custody of the Department of Corrections. Movant claims the untimeliness of his motion should be excused because, for a time, he was without access to legal assistance or legal materials. Further, Movant alleged the time limits set out in Rule 29.15 are unconstitutional. Such arguments have been repeatedly rejected by the Missouri Supreme Court and this court. See Day v. State, 770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989); State v. Woltering, 810 S.W.2d 584, 589 (Mo. App. 1991); State v. Johnson, 907 S.W.2d 311, 313 (Mo. App. 1995). The judgment is affirmed. 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, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.