STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. JOSE T. BENITEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Decision date: October 17, 2013SD32063
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- JOSE T. BENITEZ, Defendant-
- Respondent
- STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-
Judges
- Trial Court Judge
- Before Lynch·David C
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
1
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD32063 ) JOSE T. BENITEZ, ) Filed: October 17, 2013 ) Defendant-Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JASPER COUNTY
Honorable David C. Dally, Circuit Judge
Before Lynch, P.J., Rahmeyer, J., and Francis, J. REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
PER CURIAM. Jose T. Benitez ("Appellant") was convicted and sentenced to a violation of section 566.062, RSMO Cum. Supp. 2006. The conviction was affirmed by this Court on June 10, 2013; subsequently, an Application for Transfer was filed in the Supreme Court of Missouri. While the application for transfer was pending, Appellant died. The Supreme Court granted the application for transfer but then retransferred the cause to this Court for: reconsideration in light of City of Clayton v. Sigoloff, 452 S.W.2d 315, 316 (Mo. App. 1970) (remanding the cause to the circuit court to dismiss
2 the underlying action where defendant passed away while appeal was pending). Cf. State v. Macklin, 560 S.W.2d 69, 70 (Mo. App. 1977) (noting that "[d]uring his lifetime, defendant was never finally convicted of the crimes charged and his death served to abate the prosecutions against him."); State v. Lee, 580 S.W.2d 563, 564 (Mo. App. 1979); State v. King, 603 S.W.2d 71, 72 (Mo. App. 1980); State v. West, 630 S.W.2d 271, 271 (Mo. App. 1982).
Thus, in light of the aforementioned cases, we remand to the circuit court to dismiss the underlying action.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Statutes
- RSMo § 566.062cited
section 566.062, RSMO
Cases
- cf state v macklin 560 sw2d 69cited
Cf. State v. Macklin, 560 S.W.2d 69
- city of clayton v sigoloff 452 sw2d 315cited
City of Clayton v. Sigoloff, 452 S.W.2d 315
- state v king 603 sw2d 71cited
State v. King, 603 S.W.2d 71
- state v lee 580 sw2d 563cited
State v. Lee, 580 S.W.2d 563
- state v west 630 sw2d 271cited
State v. West, 630 S.W.2d 271
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.