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
- faretta v california 422 us 806cited
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806
Holdings
Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.
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
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.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. ANDREW J. SALES, JR., Appellant(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictSeptember 22, 2025#SD38593
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Deandre J. Cothran, Appellant.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMay 27, 2025#ED112122
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. CHRISTOPHER W. SMITH, Appellant(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictSeptember 20, 2024#SD38054
PATRICK ELLSWOOD, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMay 23, 2024#SD37932
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. MARCUS L. LAVENDER, Appellant(2023)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictNovember 21, 2023#SD37200