Randy Carter, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Randy Carter
- Respondent
- State of Missouri
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
- {"type":"remanded","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 Eastern District Case Style: Randy Carter, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 72151 Handdown Date: 03/03/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Harry Stussie Counsel for Appellant: David L. Simpson Counsel for Respondent: John Munson Morris Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crahan, C.J., Teitelman, J. and Blackmar, Sr.J. Opinion: ORDER Randy Carter, Movant, appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. This is the second time we have addressed this case. In Carter v. State, 924 S.W.2d 580 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996), this Court remanded Movant's case for the motion court to conduct an inquiry to determine if Movant's post-conviction counsel had abandoned him. Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495, 498 (Mo. banc 1991). Upon remand, a hearing was held and the motion court determined there was no abandonment by post-conviction counsel. On appeal, Movant contends the inquiry did not show sufficient compliance with Rule 24.035(e).(FN1) We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court's decision is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Footnotes:
In a pro se point on appeal, Movant also argues that he could not be convicted pursuant to Section 195.020, RSMo 1986 (repealed 1989) because it was repealed in 1989 after he allegedly committed the crimes. We have disregarded Movant's pro se point on appeal pursuant to Eastern District Court of Appeals Rule 380 which prohibits the filing of pro se briefs, pleadings or papers where a party is represented by counsel. 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.
Statutes
- RSMo § 195.020cited
Section 195.020, RSMo
Rules
- Rule 24.035cited
Rule 24.035
- Rule 380cited
Rule 380
- Rule 84.16cited
Rule 84.16
Cases
- in carter v state 924 sw2d 580cited
In Carter v. State, 924 S.W.2d 580
- luleff v state 807 sw2d 495cited
Luleff v. State, 807 S.W.2d 495
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.