OTT LAW

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. PAMELA RUTH CAMPANELLA, Defendant-Appellant

Decision date: October 29, 2020SD36578

Parties & Roles

Appellant
PAMELA RUTH CAMPANELLA, Defendant-
Respondent
STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-

Judges

Trial Court Judge
James A

Disposition

Reversed

Procedural posture: Appeal from judgment

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).

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Cases

Holdings

Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.

AI-generated
  1. Issue: Whether the trial court erred in finding that Defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to counsel without an express waiver, an inquiry into indigency, or a Faretta hearing.

    Yes, the trial court erred because it did not adequately establish that Defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to counsel, requiring reversal and remand for a new trial.

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172

reversed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam4,420 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. ANDREW J. SALES, JR., Appellant(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictSeptember 22, 2025#SD38593

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority3,228 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Deandre J. Cothran, Appellant.(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMay 27, 2025#ED112122

affirmed
criminal-lawmemorandum6,985 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. CHRISTOPHER W. SMITH, Appellant(2024)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictSeptember 20, 2024#SD38054

reversed
criminal-lawmajority2,445 words

PATRICK ELLSWOOD, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMay 23, 2024#SD37932

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,377 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. MARCUS L. LAVENDER, Appellant(2023)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictNovember 21, 2023#SD37200

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority6,594 words