OTT LAW

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent vs. JUSTIN P. GILLER, Appellant

Decision date: June 29, 2020SD35980

Parties & Roles

Appellant
JUSTIN P. GILLER
Respondent
STATE OF MISSOURI

Judges

Trial Court Judge
John D

Disposition

Affirmed

Procedural posture: Appeal from felony conviction challenging persistent-offender finding

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. SD35980 ) JUSTIN P. GILLER, ) FILED: June 29, 2020 ) Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PHELPS COUNTY Honorable John D. Beger, Judge AFFIRMED Justin Giller appeals a felony conviction, challenging only the persistent- offender finding on a theory that Case.net proof of prior convictions 1 cannot be

1 See www.courts.mo.gov/casenet, which Giller accurately describes as "the electronic, automated case management system for Missouri courts." The colloquy quoted by Giller follows: [PROSECUTOR]: Judge. We're asking for the Court to take judicial notice of the first two cases, 14TE-CR00675 [and]... THE COURT: 14TE-CR-- go ahead. [PROSECUTOR]: 00675-01. THE COURT: Case.net indicates the Defendant in that case was Justin P. Giller, date of birth 9/11 of '91 and that he entered an Alford plea on April 14 of 2015 to the Class C, under the prior criminal code, the felony of burglary in the second degree and was sentenced to two years in the Department of Corrections. [PROSECUTOR]: Is there -- I'm sorry, Judge. Is there an offense date in the documents?

2

judicially noticed unless it is "presented either through the testimony of a sworn witness or through properly authenticated physical printouts." He did not raise this objection at trial, now claims plain error, but shows no manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. Rather, Giller: • acknowledges RSMo § 490.130, under which court records in a statewide court automated recordkeeping system established by our supreme court are admissible in our courts without further certification; 2

• does not dispute that § 490.130 covers Case.net records; and • does not deny his prior convictions or that Case.net shows them. Point denied. Judgment affirmed. DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J. – OPINION AUTHOR DON E. BURRELL, J. – CONCURS MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. – CONCURS

THE COURT: One moment. The information indicates that it occurred on or about October 20 of 2014. [PROSECUTOR]: Thank you, Your Honor... THE COURT: All right. And your next case? [PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, the next case number is 14TE-CR00790. And, Your Honor, we would -- THE COURT: In that case the Defendant is Justin P. Giller, date of birth 9/11 of '91, and it alleges or shows that he entered a -- an Alford plea to burglary in the second degree again on April 14 of 2015. I think both of those were before me. And the date of occurrence is alleged to have been October 16 of 2014. [PROSECUTOR]: Thank you, Your Honor. Based on those records, the State would ask for the Court the find that the Defendant is beyond a reasonable doubt a prior and persistent felony offender. 2 To the extent the trial judge read e-filed or digitized Case.net documents, as the quoted colloquy suggests, he was reading official court records. Rule 103.03; State v. Ralph, 521 S.W.3d 673, 679 n.7 (Mo.App. 2017).

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Cases

Holdings

Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.

AI-generated
  1. Issue: Whether the trial court committed plain error by taking judicial notice of Case.net records to establish prior convictions for a persistent-offender finding without sworn testimony or authenticated physical printouts.

    The trial court did not commit plain error in taking judicial notice of Case.net records for a persistent-offender finding, as RSMo § 490.130 allows for the admissibility of such records without further certification, and the appellant failed to show manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice.

    Standard of review: plain error

Related Opinions

Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,374 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,603 words

Derrie S. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113255

affirmed

Appellant Derrie Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 post-conviction relief motion, arguing he was denied effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to allow him to testify and failed to investigate and call two witnesses. The court affirmed the motion court's judgment denying post-conviction relief, finding that the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous.

criminal-lawper_curiam2,066 words

Daniel T. Williams, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113233

affirmed

The court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief where appellant claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel's failure to investigate his mental state. The appellant failed to establish how additional mental state information would have aided his defense or satisfied the prejudice requirement for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

criminal-lawmajority1,774 words

CARL CAMERON FERGUSON, Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 3, 2026#SD38798

affirmed

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief, finding that Ferguson failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel's failure to call witnesses in his favor. The court concluded that Ferguson did not proffer the names of any viable defense witnesses and that witness selection constitutes trial strategy.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,801 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Lematty, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictJanuary 13, 2026#ED112791

affirmed

The defendant was convicted of first-degree rape and second-degree burglary. The appellate court affirmed the rape conviction but reversed the burglary conviction due to plain error in the jury instruction regarding second-degree burglary.

criminal-lawmajority6,723 words