Michael Owsley, Appellant v. Jay Nixon and Lucy Rauch, Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownWD65874
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Michael Owsley
- Respondent
- Jay Nixon and Lucy Rauch
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
- {"type":"reversed","scope":null}
- {"type":"dismissed","scope":null}
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: Michael Owsley, Appellant v. Jay Nixon and Lucy Rauch, Respondents. Case Number: WD65874 Handdown Date: 12/12/2006 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Thomas J. Brown III Counsel for Appellant: Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Shaun Mackelprang, Ryan Haigh and Stephen D. Hawke Opinion Summary: Michael Owsley filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have his conviction reversed. The circuit court summarily dismissed the writ and made no decision on the merits. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division holds: This court does not have jurisdiction, and the proper course of conduct is for Owsley to file a writ of mandamus in this court rather than an appeal to this court. The appeal is dismissed. Citation: Opinion Author: Ronald R. Holliger, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Spinden, J., and Hardwick, J., concur. Opinion:
Michael Owsley appeals the denial by the circuit court of his petition for a writ of mandamus. In his petition, he sought to have his conviction reversed. He was convicted on October 17, 2001, of stealing by deceit and later sentenced to five years imprisonment and placed on probation. Owsley's conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal in State v. Owsley, 91 S.W.3d 704 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) (per curiam). On April 7, 2003, his probation was revoked. Owsley began the current litigation by filing a "Petition in Mandamus" on July 11, 2005. The circuit court summarily dismissed the petition because it "fail[ed] to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted." A denial of a writ of mandamus is not appealable unless a decision has been made on the merits, by, for example, "determin[ing] a question of fact or law." Delay v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 174 S.W.3d 662, 664 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (quoting Wheat v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 932 S.W.2d 835, 838 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996)). "When a circuit court denies a preliminary writ of mandamus, appeal is not proper; instead, the petitioner must file the writ in" the next highest court. Id. (citing Wheat, 932 S.W.2d at 838). In this case, the circuit court summarily dismissed the writ and made no decision on the merits. Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction, and the proper course of conduct is for Owsley to file a writ of mandamus in this court rather than an appeal to this court. Appeal dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Cases
- owsleys conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal in state v owsley 91 sw3d 704cited
Owsley's conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal in State v. Owsley, 91 S.W.3d 704
Related Opinions
Other opinions in the same practice area.
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, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.