IN THE MATTER OF THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF DONALD PECKHAM, a/k/a DONALD D. PECKHAM, a/k/a DONALD DEAN PECKHAM, Respondent-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Petitioner-Respondent
Decision date: December 21, 2020SD36302
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
IN THE MATTER OF THE CARE ) AND TREATMENT OF ) DONALD PECKHAM, ) a/k/a DONALD D. PECKHAM, ) a/k/a DONALD DEAN PECKHAM, ) ) Respondent-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SD36302 ) Filed: December 21, 2020 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Petitioner-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY Honorable David B. Mouton, Circuit Judge Before Bates, C.J./P.J., Lynch, J., and Sheffield, J.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
PER CURIAM. Donald Peckham (Appellant) was found to be a sexually violent predator pursuant to § 632.480 RSMo (2016) and was committed to the custody of the Department of Mental Health for treatment. The judgment was affirmed on appeal by this Court on August 31, 2020. Thereafter, Appellant filed an application for transfer with our Supreme Court. While the application was pending, Appellant died. The Supreme Court
2
accepted the suggestions of death filed by counsel, struck all prior filings by Appellant, and closed its case. "Missouri courts have long recognized the doctrine of abatement ab initio[.]" State v. Mott, 569 S.W.3d 555, 556 (Mo. App. 2019). "It is not the appeal which abates, but the prosecution itself, the right of the action itself[.]" Baker v. Modern Woodmen of America, 121 S.W. 794, 797 (Mo. App. 1909). Abatement "means an extinguishment of the very right of action itself." Id. The abatement doctrine applies to criminal cases as well as certain civil matters. Town of Carrollton v. Rhomberg, 78 Mo. 547, 549 (1883); City of Clayton v. Sigoloff, 452 S.W.2d 315, 316 (Mo. App. 1970). "In general, an action which is personal abates upon the death of a party." In re Marriage of Carter, 794 S.W.2d 321, 322 (Mo. App. 1990). In such a case, "[w]hen an appellant dies prior to his appeal becoming final, we are required to remand the case to the circuit court to dismiss the underlying action." Mott, 569 S.W.3d at 556. 1
Accordingly, we withdraw our opinion filed August 31, 2020, and remand this matter to the circuit court with directions to vacate its judgment and commitment order, and to dismiss the underlying petition.
1 The common law rule of abatement has been abrogated by statute in certain instances. See, e.g., Breeden v. Hueser, 273 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Mo. App. 2008). Sexually violent predator cases are purely personal to the convicted sex offender and we find no statute to the contrary.
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.