State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Henry A. Jackson, 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 Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Henry A. Jackson, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: 66414 and 71391 Handdown Date: 12/09/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. David C. Mason Counsel for Appellant: Ellen H. Flottman Counsel for Respondent: Daniel G. Cierpiot Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Crane, P.J., Rhodes Russell and James R. Dowd, J.J., concur. Opinion: ORDER Henry Jackson appeals from the judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of first degree murder, Section 565.020 RSMo 1994, one count of first degree assault, Section 565.050 RSMo 1994, and two counts of armed criminal action, Section 571.015 RSMo 1994. Jackson was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, fifteen years, and two life sentences to be served concurrently. Jackson also filed a Rule 29.15 motion which was denied on the merits after an evidentiary hearing. The motion court's judgment is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. No error of law appears and no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment of the trial court and the judgment of the motion court are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
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.