STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. PAMELA RUTH CAMPANELLA, Defendant-Appellant
Decision date: October 29, 2020SD36578
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. SD36578 ) PAMELA RUTH CAMPANELLA, ) Filed: October 29, 2020 ) Defendant-Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HICKORY COUNTY
Honorable James A. Hackett, Associate Circuit Judge
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Pamela Ruth Campanella ("Defendant") complains in a single point that the court erred in finding that she knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived counsel in violation of her right to counsel and due process because there was neither an express nor an implied waiver of counsel. In support of her point, Defendant points to the transcript which shows no indication that she wanted to represent herself and no indication that she signed a waiver of counsel. The trial court indicated that it would allow Defendant's
2 attorney to withdraw shortly before trial, 1 but if Defendant were unable to hire counsel she would have to represent herself. When she was unable to obtain counsel, the trial court did not inquire into her indigency 2 and failed to conduct a Faretta hearing. 3 The State concedes that the trial court did not adequately establish that Defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her right to counsel. Defendant's point is granted; the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, P.J. – Opinion Author
Daniel E. Scott, J. – Concurs
William W. Francis, Jr., J. – Concurs
1 Defendant informed the trial court that her attorney could not hear her, that he could not find her file, and that he could not remember what was going on most of the time so she reluctantly had to let him go. She contended she had a file of 19 witnesses that he should have called but failed to do so.
2 A public defender represented Defendant at the sentencing hearing, at which time the court took up a motion for new trial based in part on the issue of Defendant not adequately knowingly and voluntarily waiving her right to counsel.
3 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
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.