STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. JOSEPH THERON WRIGHT, Appellant
Decision date: February 11, 2020SD36013
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, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD36013 ) JOSEPH THERON WRIGHT, ) FILED: February 11, 2020 ) Appellant. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STODDARD COUNTY Honorable Robert N. Mayer, Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Convicted of second-degree domestic assault, a class D felony, Appellant received a 12-year sentence as a § 565.079 persistent assault offender, which the state now concedes as error. 1 Finding no merit to Appellant's other point, we reverse and remand for resentencing. The persistent-assault-offender finding was based on Appellant's two other assault convictions, one in 2012, but the other on August 28, 2018, a week after the instant offense. We agree with the parties that this was error; all findings of guilt needed to pre-date the instant offense. § 565.079.10. We also agree that proper recourse is to reverse and remand for resentencing within the range of punishment for a class C felony, three to ten years. 2
1 Statutory citations are RSMo as amended through 2017. 2 Both parties acknowledge the court's finding that Appellant also was a § 558.016 persistent felony offender based on his 2012 felony assault plea and a 2011 felony drug plea.
2
We reject Appellant's other charge that the trial court "abused its discretion or plainly erred" in overruling Appellant's objection to an alleged closing-argument comment on Appellant's failure to testify. Plain error is the applicable standard given the objection's lack of specificity, and no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice appears. 3 See State v. Hawkins, 328 S.W.3d 799, 812-14 (Mo.App. 2010). We reverse and remand solely for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J. – OPINION AUTHOR JEFFREY W. BATES, C.J. – CONCURS MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. – CONCURS
3 We quote the transcript: [PROSECUTOR]: [The victim] came. She faced her accuser. She faced her assaulter. Stood on the stand and told you what happened. That's the evidence in this case. And that's what happened here. It's unrefuted. That's the big five dollar word that lawyers use to say there's nobody saying anything else. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, Your Honor. The Defendant's pled not guilty. He's certainly disputing the victim's statements. [PROSECUTOR]: I'm talking about what's in evidence. THE COURT: All right. The Court will overrule the objection. Specific objections to arguments or statements of counsel are required to draw the court's attention to the reason for objection. See State v. Neighbors, 502 S.W.3d 745, 748 (Mo.App. 2016). Here, trial counsel's objection ("The Defendant's pled not guilty. He's certainly disputing the victim's statements.") differs from Point 2 on appeal (impermissible comment on a defendant's right to remain silent).
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.