STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. JOSHUA HAWLEY, Relator, v. HONORABLE SIDNEY PEARSON, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownSD35005
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
1
STATE OF MISSOURI EX REL. ) JOSHUA HAWLEY, ) ) Relator, ) ) v. ) No. SD35005 ) HONORABLE SIDNEY PEARSON, ) Filed: Dec. 5, 2017 ) Respondent. )
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS
(Before Sheffield, P.J., Lynch, J., and Burrell, J.)
PERMANENT WRIT IN MANDAMUS ISSUED
PER CURIAM. Relator has presented to this Court a petition in mandamus seeking, inter alia, an order of this Court, directed to you in Dent County Case No. 13DE-CR00230, to rescind certain orders purporting to vacate and re-sentence the defendant in said case; WHEREAS, the Court issued a preliminary writ on June 20, 2017, and the parties have fully briefed the matter; further, the Supreme Court issued an opinion on November 21, 2017, which has decided all of the issues presented by the parties;
2 NOW, THEREFORE, having fully considered the matter, the Court hereby orders and adjudges that this Court's Permanent Writ in Mandamus ought to be, and the same hereby is, issued whereby respondent, the Honorable Sidney Pearson, is ordered to vacate the order of March 15, 2017, in Dent County Case No. 13DE-CR00230-01, and the order or judgment of May 5, 2017, in Dent County Case No. 13DE-CR00230-02, which purported to reopen the criminal case, to set aside the defendant's conviction and sentence, and to re-sentence the defendant under the auspices of Rule 29.12(b). The circuit court is without jurisdiction to do so and any such orders and judgments made pursuant thereto are null and void. State ex rel. Zahnd v. Van Amburg and Fincham, SC96378 and SC96382.
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, 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.