Glenn B. Mansfield, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Glenn B. Mansfield
- Respondent
- State of Missouri
Disposition
Undetermined
Procedural posture: Appeal from post-conviction relief proceedings under Rule 29.15
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
2
and on September 5, 2019, certified Mansfield for prosecution as an adult and transferred his case to the associate circuit court. The State filed a felony complaint charging Mansfield with first- degree robbery, first-degree assault, and armed criminal action. Following certification, trial counsel entered her appearance. Trial counsel filed a motion with the associate circuit court to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the juvenile court erroneously certified Mansfield as an adult and that Mansfield received ineffective assistance of certification counsel. After a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the court denied the jurisdiction motion, held a preliminary hearing, and bound the matter over for trial in the circuit court. Trial counsel then filed a motion to dismiss the information in circuit court, which included the same claims made in the first earlier denied motion. The circuit court denied the motion. Following a one-day jury trial on July 13, 2021, Mansfield was found guilty on all three counts as charged. Subsequent trial counsel (L.H.) filed a motion for new trial, raising the claim, among others, that the circuit court erred in denying the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. At sentencing on November 29, 2021, the circuit court sentenced Mansfield to two concurrent ten- year terms of imprisonment on the first-degree robbery and first-degree assault, and a consecutive ten-year term on the armed criminal action, for a total of twenty years. This Court affirmed the judgment and sentences in State v. Mansfield, 656 S.W.3d 45 (Mo. App. E.D. 2022). Mansfield sought post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. Appointed counsel timely filed an amended Rule 29.15 motion. On December 1, 2023, the motion court held an evidentiary hearing regarding Mansfield's ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Mansfield testified on his own behalf and called trial counsel L.H. and a lay witness to testify. Appellate counsel testified by deposition that the
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 29.15cited
Rule 29.15
Cases
- this court affirmed the judgment and sentences in state v mansfield 656 sw3d 45cited
This Court affirmed the judgment and sentences in State v. Mansfield, 656 S.W.3d 45
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Derrie S. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113255
Appellant Derrie Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, arguing he was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to allow him to testify and failed to investigate and call two witnesses. The court affirmed the motion court's judgment denying post-conviction relief, finding that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous.
Daniel T. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113233
The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief where appellant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel's failure to investigate his mental state. The appellant failed to establish how additional mental state information would have aided his defense or satisfied the prejudice requirement for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
CARL CAMERON FERGUSON, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 3, 2026#SD38798
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, finding that Ferguson failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel's failure to call witnesses in his favor. The court concluded that Ferguson did not proffer the names of any viable defense witnesses and that witness selection constitutes trial strategy.
Craig M. Wood, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 13, 2026#SC100874
Craig Wood appealed the overruling of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief challenging his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for the 2014 abduction and murder of 10-year-old Hailey Owens. The court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding no ineffective assistance of counsel or other grounds for postconviction relief warranting reversal of Wood's conviction and sentence.
Harry Little, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictJanuary 13, 2026#ED113257
The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief for Harry Little's convictions for murder in the second degree, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Trial counsel's decisions not to call an alibi witness and not to argue a specific alternative perpetrator in closing argument constituted reasonable trial strategy rather than ineffective assistance of counsel.
Demetrius L. Davis, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 23, 2025#ED112275