Missouri Inmates, et al., Appellants, v. Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownSC83392
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Missouri Inmates, et al.
- Respondent
- Missouri Department of Corrections
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"affirmed","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
Case Style: Missouri Inmates, et al., Appellants, v. Missouri Department of Corrections, Respondent. Case Number: SC83392 Handdown Date: 06/12/2001 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Byron L. Kinder Counsel for Appellant: Chris Milner, David Anderson, George Robinson, Melvin Hayes and James Boersig Counsel for Respondent: Stephen D. Hawke Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Price, C.J., Limbaugh, White, Holstein, Wolff and Benton, JJ., concur. Stith, J., not participating. Opinion: Eighteen inmates sought a declaratory judgment that they are entitled to a conditional release as a part of their sentences. The petition states virtually no facts with respect to specific sentences imposed. According to the petition, section 558.011 creates a liberty interest in conditional release so that all sentences have a conditional release component. The inmates also contend the 1994 version of section 558.019 does not apply to their sentences as it has been repealed. Finally, the inmates allege that sections 558.011.5, 557.036, and 558.019 are unconstitutional. The circuit court found that the petition failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismissed the petition. Five inmates appeal to this Court because the case involves the validity of various statutes. Mo. Const. article V, section 3. There is no error of law. An opinion would have no precedential value in light of the petition's lack of factual pleadings and Elliott v. Carnahan, 916 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. App. 1996). The trial court's judgment is affirmed by this
memorandum decision. Rule 84.16(b). 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.
Rules
- Rule 84.16cited
Rule 84.16
Cases
- elliott v carnahan 916 sw2d 239cited
Elliott v. Carnahan, 916 S.W.2d 239
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.