MARION W. KASPARIE, JR., Movant-Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.
Decision date: October 6, 2016SD34400
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
MARION W. KASPARIE, JR., ) ) Movant-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. SD34400 ) Filed: October 6, 2016 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent-Respondent. ) )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POLK COUNTY Honorable Lisa Carter Henderson, Associate Circuit Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED Marion Kasparie, Jr. (Movant) appeals from the denial of his pro se Rule 29.15 motion. 1 He contends the motion court clearly erred by denying Movant's motion without appointing counsel to represent Movant, as required by Rule 29.15(e). Because this contention has merit, we reverse the order denying relief and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2
1 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2016). 2 The State concedes the case must be remanded because of this error.
After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second-degree domestic assault. The trial court imposed a seven-year sentence, suspended execution of same and placed Movant on probation for five years. This Court affirmed Movant's conviction on direct appeal. Mandate issued on January 27, 2016. On February 17, 2016, Movant filed a timely pro se Rule 29.15 motion. See Rule 29.15(b). The motion included a completed and notarized in forma pauperis affidavit. On March 11, 2016, the motion court denied relief without having appointed counsel to represent Movant. This appeal followed. We review the motion court's ruling for clear error. Rule 29.15(k); Williams v. State, 168 S.W.3d 433, 439 (Mo. banc 2005). In relevant part, Rule 29.15(e) states that "[w]hen an indigent movant files a pro se motion, the court shall cause counsel to be appointed for the movant." Id. As Movant contends, the motion court's failure to appoint counsel was clearly erroneous. See Bain v. State, 59 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Mo. App. 2001); Stroud v. State, 978 S.W.2d 785, 786 (Mo. App. 1998); State v. Wendleton, 936 S.W.2d 120, 124 (Mo. App. 1996). The order denying relief is reversed. The cause is remanded for appointment of counsel and further proceedings pursuant to Rule 29.15.
JEFFREY W. BATES, P.J. – OPINION AUTHOR DON E. BURRELL, J. – CONCUR MARY W. SHEFFIELD, C.J. – CONCUR
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.