State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Darrell Gene Bond, Appellant.
Decision date: UnknownWD53107
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Darrell Gene Bond
- Respondent
- State of Missouri
Disposition
Affirmed
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 Western District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Darrell Gene Bond, Appellant. Case Number: No. 51526 (Consolidated with WD 53107) Handdown Date: 08/26/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Boone County, Hon. Ellen S. Roper Counsel for Appellant: Susan Lynn Hogan Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Berrey, P.J.; Spinden and Smart, JJ., concur. Opinion: ORDER Darrell Bond appeals his conviction for leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident, section 577.060, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to seven years imprisonment. He also appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The court has carefully considered the arguments on appeal, and finds them to be without merit. A published opinion would have no precedential value. A memorandum as to the reasons for the decision has been furnished to the parties. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed. Rules 84.16(b) and 30.25(b). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Statutes
- RSMo § 577.060cited
section 577.060, RSMo
Rules
- Rule 29.15cited
Rule 29.15
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.