OTT LAW

Kyle Underwood, Respondent, v. The Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections and The Chairman of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, Appellants.

Decision date: UnknownWD66415

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 Western District Case Style: Kyle Underwood, Respondent, v. The Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections and The Chairman of the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, Appellants. Case Number: WD66415 Handdown Date: 02/27/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Richard G. Callahan, Judge Counsel for Appellant: Stephen David Hawke Counsel for Respondent: Daniel E. Hunt Opinion Summary: The Missouri Department of Corrections appeals an order in mandamus directing that Kyle Underwood be considered for parole prior to completion of forty percent of his sentence. Underwood was paroled from custody in September 2006, before this case was submitted to the court. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division holds: The appeal is dismissed as moot. A cause of action is moot when the question is presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy. Citation: Opinion Author: Ronald R. Holliger, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Breckenridge, P.J., and Lowenstein, J., concur. Opinion:

The Missouri Department of Corrections appeals an order in mandamus directing that Kyle Underwood be considered for parole prior to completion of forty percent of his sentence. Underwood pled guilty to second degree burglary (Case No. 01CR126687-01) on December 3, 2001, and was given a suspended imposition of sentence and placed on five years probation. On July 15, 2002, Underwood pled guilty to second degree burglary (Case No. 02CR125194-01). On August 8, 2002, Underwood's probation was revoked in Case No. 01CR126687-01 and he was sentenced to seven years in the Department of Corrections ("DOC") under Section 559.115. Also, on August 8, Underwood was sentenced to five years in the DOC for Case No. 02CR125194-04 under the provisions of Section 559.115, said sentence to be concurrent with the sentence in Case No. 01CR126687-01. On November 19, 2002, Underwood was called back after serving 120 days and placed on probation. On April 26, 2004, Underwood pled guilty to second degree burglary (Case No. 03CR128726-01) and was sentenced to five years in the DOC. The DOC determined that the length of time Underwood is required to serve before becoming eligible for parole is forty percent. For purposes of making its determination as to the minimum amount of time to be served on these convictions, the DOC has considered Underwood's sentences under Section 559.119 in Case No. 01CR126687-01 and Case No. 02CR125194-01 as commitments for calculation purposes under Section 558.019. Underwood filed a Writ of Mandamus requesting the court mandate the DOC consider him for parole prior to him serving forty percent of his sentence. The trial court granted Underwood's request and a writ was issued. DOC appeals. Analysis Underwood was paroled from custody in September 2006 before this case was submitted to the court, thus rendering the case moot. "'A cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy.'" State ex rel. Garden View Care Ctr. v. Mo. Health Facilities Comm., 926 S.W.2d 90, 91 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) (quoting Bank of Washington v. McAuliffe, 676 S.W.2d 483, 487 (Mo. banc 1984)). Because Underwood is no longer in custody, "'the issue for review ceases to live'" and the case must be dismissed as moot. Id. (quoting Grogan v. Hays, 639 S.W.2d 875, 877 (Mo. App. W.D.1982)).

Appeal dismissed. 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

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,374 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,516 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,993 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,670 words