State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Derrick Thomas, 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 Western District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Derrick Thomas, Appellant. Case Number: 54465 Handdown Date: 07/07/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jackson County, Hon. Jay Daugherty Counsel for Appellant: J. Philip Crawford Counsel for Respondent: Daniel Barry Opinion Summary: The Juvenile Division of the Jackson County Circuit Court held a hearing and waived jurisdiction allowing prosecution under the general law. The defendant appeals from this decision. DISMISSED. Division III holds: The Missouri Supreme Court held that the dismissal of a petition in juvenile court and to allow prosecution under the general law pursuant to section 211.071, RSMo 1994, is not a final order from which an appeal is allowed. Citation: Opinion Author: Forest W. Hanna, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Stith and Smith, J.J., concur. Opinion: Derrick Thomas was 15 years of age on November 21, 1996. On March 8, 1997, he was referred to the Juvenile Division of the Jackson County Circuit Court for rape, section 566.030, RSMo 1994. On March 12, 1997, the attorney for the juvenile officer filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to section 211.071, RSMo 1994, waiving jurisdiction and recommending transfer to the adult court. A hearing was held on April 24, 1997, and shortly thereafter the juvenile judge
waived jurisdiction and allowed prosecution under the general law. Thomas appeals, arguing that the juvenile judge erred because he had received little or no services for his drug problem since his previous referral. The Missouri Supreme Court held in In Re T.J.H., that a dismissal of a petition to allow prosecution under the general law pursuant to section 211.071, RSMo 1994, is not a final order from which an appeal is allowed. 479 S.W.2d 433, 434 (Mo. banc 1972). See also In the Interest of A.D.R., 515 S.W.2d 438, 439 (Mo. banc 1974). The court determined that allowing interlocutory review of the order would not be appropriate because delay of prosecution could jeopardize the entire proceeding. In Re T.J.H., 479 S.W.2d at 434. The court noted that the exclusive method for review of a Juvenile Division's order is to file a motion to dismiss the indictment in the court of general jurisdiction. Id. at 435. Appeal dismissed. 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, 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.