IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S.M., STODDARD COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICER, Petitioner-Respondent v. D.S.M., Respondent-Appellant

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S.M.,

STODDARD COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICER,

Petitioner-Respondent, v.

D.S.M.,

Respondent-Appellant.

No. SD38622

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STODDARD COUNTY Honorable Joe Z. Satterfield, Associate Circuit Judge AFFIRMED D.S.M. appeals from a judgment of the juvenile division of the circuit court dismissing his juvenile proceeding, transferring him to a court of general jurisdiction, and certifying him to be criminally prosecuted as an adult pursuant to § 211.071 RSMo (2016). On appeal, D.S.M. claims that his appointed counsel (Counsel) was ineffective due to an "actual conflict of interest[.]" He requested that this Court remand the case to the juvenile division below to permit D.S.M. to present evidence

In Division

2

in support of this claim. 1 Following remand, the juvenile division judge held an evidentiary hearing and found "no actual conflict of interest" in Counsel's representation of D.S.M. Although D.S.M. was given the opportunity to file an amended brief addressing the juvenile division's findings, he did not do so. We affirm. Standard of Review A judgment is presumed correct, and the party challenging the judgment bears the burden of proving it erroneous. Brackney v. Walker, 670 S.W.3d 455, 458 (Mo. App. 2023). Our review of juvenile proceedings is performed in the same manner as in other court-tried cases. D.C.M. v. Pemiscot County Juvenile Office, 578 S.W.3d 776, 786 (Mo. banc 2019). "This Court will affirm a judgment in a juvenile proceeding unless it is not supported by evidence, is against the weight of evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law." Id. The credibility of the witnesses and the weight their testimony should be given is a matter to be determined at the hearing by the circuit court, "which is free to believe none, part, or all of their testimony." C.L.B. v. Juvenile Officer, 22 S.W.3d 233, 236 (Mo. App. 2000); see D.C.M., 578 S.W.3d at 786.

1 A juvenile's claim that he or she received ineffective assistance of counsel during certification proceedings is cognizable on direct appeal and is reviewed by this Court as if preserved. C.R.B. v. Juvenile Officer, 673 S.W.3d 135, 138-39 (Mo. App. 2023). If the record is not sufficiently developed to allow for proper review of the issue raised, the cause may be remanded to develop the factual basis for review of the claim. D.C.M. v. Pemiscot County Juvenile Office, 578 S.W.3d 776, 782-83 (Mo. banc 2019); C.R.B., 673 S.W.3d at 139.

3

Factual and Procedural Background D.S.M. was born in September 2006. In March 2024, less than six months before his 18 th birthday, the Chief Juvenile Officer of Stoddard County (C.J.O.) filed a petition alleging that D.S.M. had violated state law by committing two counts of stealing. An amended petition further alleged D.S.M. violated state law by committing four counts of receiving stolen property. Following a detention hearing, the juvenile division judge: (1) ordered that D.S.M. remain in detention; (2) found D.S.M. was indigent; and (3) appointed Counsel to represent D.S.M. In April 2024, the C.J.O. filed a motion for certification to allow prosecution of D.S.M. under the general law as an adult. Following a hearing on the motion, the juvenile division entered its judgment: (1) certifying D.S.M. to be criminally prosecuted as an adult; (2) dismissing the juvenile petition; and (3) transferring D.S.M. to a court of general jurisdiction for prosecution to commence. Thereafter, D.S.M. appealed the certification judgment to this Court, arguing that Counsel provided ineffective assistance. D.S.M. claimed Counsel had an "actual conflict of interest" based on his "concurrent representation of the State of Missouri" as an assistant prosecutor in Pemiscot County. D.S.M. requested this Court remand the case to the juvenile division with instructions to allow D.S.M. the opportunity to present evidence in support of his claim that Counsel was ineffective. This Court granted D.S.M.'s request for a limited remand, directing the juvenile division to "hold a hearing to determine whether an actual conflict of interest resulted" from Counsel's

4

representation of D.S.M. in the certification proceeding. Upon remand, the appeal was ordered to be held in abeyance. In October 2025, the juvenile division held an evidentiary hearing, at which D.S.M., represented by new counsel, presented testimony from Counsel. The C.J.O. presented testimony from another Stoddard County juvenile officer, who was familiar with Counsel and the case. After hearing the evidence, the juvenile division judge made a specific factual finding that there was "no actual conflict of interest" in Counsel's representation of D.S.M. Thereafter, D.S.M. did not file an amended brief challenging the juvenile division's finding. This appeal followed. Discussion and Decision D.S.M.'s single point on appeal contends the juvenile division judge erred by dismissing the C.J.O.'s petition and transferring D.S.M. to a court of general jurisdiction for prosecution under the general law. According to D.S.M., he "did not receive effective assistance of counsel during the certification proceedings" because Counsel "had an actual conflict of interest due to his concurrent representation of the State of Missouri as Assistant Prosecuting Attorney in Pemiscot County." We disagree. Here, D.S.M. failed to meet his burden of proving the judgment is erroneous. See Brackney, 670 S.W.3d at 458. The juvenile division of the circuit court obviously believed the testimonial evidence that Counsel did not have an actual conflict of interest, and we must defer to the court's credibility determinations. See D.C.M., 578 S.W.3d at 786. Moreover, D.S.M. has presented no argument on appeal challenging

5

that finding on any basis. Thus, because the judgment is presumed correct and D.S.M. failed to prove it erroneous, D.S.M.'s point is denied. The judgment of the juvenile division of the circuit court is affirmed.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – OPINION AUTHOR JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCUR MATTHEW P. HAMNER, J. – CONCUR