State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Edward V. Lawrence, Appellant.
Decision date: UnknownED102991
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Edward V. Lawrence
- Respondent
- State of Missouri
Judges
- Trial Court Judge
- Mary K
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
- {"type":"dismissed","scope":null}
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
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED102991 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County vs. ) ) Hon. Thea A. Sherry EDWARD V. LAWRENCE, ) ) Filed: Appellant. ) November 24, 2015
Edward Lawrence was convicted of a double homicide in 1984 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for capital murder and to a consecutive term of life imprisonment for first-degree murder. Our court affirmed his conviction and sentence in State v. Lawrence, 700 S.W.2d 111 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985), denied him post-conviction relief in Lawrence v. State, 750 S.W.2d 505 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988), affirmed the denial of his first motion for a nunc pro tunc order in State v. Lawrence, 33 S.W.3d 587 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) and dismissed his untimely appeal from the denial of his second motion for a nunc pro tunc order in State v. Lawrence, 139 S.W.3d 573 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004). He now appeals from the denial of a motion he filed to set aside the judgment under Rule 29.12(b) for manifest injustice relating to alleged discovery violations at his 1984 trial. Rule 29.12(b) does not provide an independent basis under which a person convicted of a crime can subsequently challenge his conviction or sentence. See Vernor v. State, 30 S.W.3d 196, 197 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) and progeny. Without an independent basis for Lawrence's
2
motion, there is not an appealable judgment. See State v. McGee, 417 S.W.3d 260, 261 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). Therefore, we must dismiss the appeal. See id. The appeal is dismissed.
ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., Presiding Judge
Mary K. Hoff, J. and Roy L. Richter, J., concur.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 29.12cited
Rule 29.12
Cases
- lawrence v state 750 sw2d 505cited
Lawrence v. State, 750 S.W.2d 505
- our court affirmed his conviction and sentence in state v lawrence 700 sw2d 111cited
Our court affirmed his conviction and sentence in State v. Lawrence, 700 S.W.2d 111
- see state v mcgee 417 sw3d 260cited
See State v. McGee, 417 S.W.3d 260
- see vernor v state 30 sw3d 196cited
See Vernor v. State, 30 S.W.3d 196
- state v lawrence 139 sw3d 573cited
State v. Lawrence, 139 S.W.3d 573
- state v lawrence 33 sw3d 587cited
State v. Lawrence, 33 S.W.3d 587
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.