State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas R. Wilbur, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision date: Unknown
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 Southern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas R. Wilbur, Defendant-Appellant. Case Number: 21769 Handdown Date: 07/10/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Barry County, Hon. John A. Clark Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: David M. Grace Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: James K. Prewitt, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. Crow and Parrish, J.J., concur. Opinion: Following non-jury trial, Defendant was convicted of passing bad checks, in violation of Section 570.120, RSMo
- He was sentenced to one year in the county jail with all but thirty days to be suspended. On appeal, he contends
that the trial court erred in allowing trial to proceed without him having counsel, as he had not knowingly and intelligently waived the right to be represented by an attorney. This point has merit. The record shows that on the day of trial Defendant appeared without an attorney and, after the case was called, executed the waiver of counsel form provided by Section 600.051, RSMo 1994. Neither then nor previously does the record reflect any warning or advice regarding the perils of a person representing himself. In State v. Wilkerson, 948 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Mo.App. 1997), the Court stated: In determining whether the waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent, the trial court is not only required to resolve the application of section 600.051, it must also determine whether the defendant was advised of the perils of self-representation. [Citations omitted.]
This advice must be given on the record before the trial date, to allow defendant time to choose whether to waive the right to an attorney. State v. West, 949 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Mo.App. 1997). See also State v. Schnelle, 924 S.W.2d 292, 296-300 (Mo.App. 1996); State v. Wilson, 816 S.W.2d 301, 307 (Mo.App. 1991). The right to counsel exists when the defendant may be incarcerated if found guilty. State v. Kilburn, 941 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Mo.App. 1997); State v. Stark, 706 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Mo.App. 1986). Whether or not indigent, the defendant must be admonished on the perils of self- representation. Kilburn, 941 S.W.2d at 739. In an apparent effort to rectify this discrepancy, the State attempts to present us with a transcript in another criminal charge against Defendant, where on June 3, 1997, sixteen days before the trial here, a different trial judge is purported to have advised Defendant regarding proceeding without counsel. This purported transcript is attached as an "exhibit" to the State's brief. As this is not part of the record here and in the trial court, it cannot be considered. See Olson v. Christian County, 952 S.W.2d 736, 738 (Mo.App. 1997). The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
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.