State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lacey Paige, Defendant. Lacey Paige, Movant/Defendant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
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 Eastern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Lacey Paige, Defendant. Lacey Paige, Movant/Defendant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 68653 and 71523 Handdown Date: 11/04/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. James R. Hartenbach Counsel for Appellant: David Simpson Counsel for Respondent: Gregory L. Barnes Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Dowd, Jr., P.J., Simon and Hoff, JJ., concur. Opinion: ORDER Lacey Paige (Defendant) appeals the judgment on his conviction by a jury of robbery in the first degree, section 569.020 RSMo 1994, and armed criminal action, section 571.015 RSMo 1994. Defendant was found to be a persistent offender, section 558.021 RSMo 1994, and sentenced to two concurrent terms of thirty years. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. Judgment affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b). In this consolidated case, Defendant also appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. The motion court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the
principles of law would have no precedential value. The motion court's judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b). 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, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976
Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.