State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael Hancock, Appellant.
Decision date: April 26, 2005SC85948
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
Case Style: State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael Hancock, Appellant. Case Number: SC85948 Handdown Date: 04/26/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Greene County, Hon. Calvin R. Holden Counsel for Appellant: Jeffrey S. Eastman Counsel for Respondent: Richard A. Starnes Opinion Summary: Michael Hancock appeals from his felony conviction for driving while intoxicated and his sentence as a persistent offender. AFFIRMED. Court en banc holds: For the reasons stated in State of Missouri v. Jeremy Pike, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Mo. banc 2005), also decided this date, the judgment is affirmed. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. All concur. Opinion: Michael Hancock appeals from his felony conviction for driving while intoxicated and his sentence as a persistent offender based on two prior driving while intoxicated convictions. Hancock argues that charging him with a felony based partly on a prior municipal driving while intoxicated conviction violates the Equal Protection clauses of the United States and Missouri Constitutions. (FN1) This Court has jurisdiction. Mo. Const. art. V, section 3. Hancock's contentions are resolved in State of Missouri v. Jeremy Pike, __ S.W.3d __ (Mo. banc 2005) (No.
SC86083, decided April 26, 2005). For the reasons stated in that opinion, the judgment is affirmed. All concur. Footnotes: FN1. U.S. Const. amends. V and XIV; Mo. Const. art. I, sec. 2. 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.