Glenn B. Mansfield, Appellant, vs. 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
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
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. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
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.