State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Tommy Pickett, Appellant.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Tommy Pickett
- Respondent
- State of Missouri
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
- {"type":"remanded","scope":null}
- {"type":"vacated","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
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. Tommy Pickett, Appellant. Case Number: 80764 Handdown Date: 06/16/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Daniel T. Tillman Counsel for Appellant: Dave Hemingway Counsel for Respondent: Cheryl A. Caponegro Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. All concur. Opinion: In State v. Pickett, 926 S.W.2d 872 (Mo.App. 1996) (Pickett I), Tommy Pickett appealed his sentences as a class X offender, section 558.019, RSMo 1994(FN1), of a life term for assault in the first degree, section 565.050, and a consecutive term of thirty years for burglary in the first degree, section 569.160. As to his first point, the court of appeals found that the trial court erred in overruling defendant's Batson motion prior to allowing the defendant to make an offer of proof that the state's proffered reasons for the strike were merely pretextual and, in fact, racially motivated. The cause was remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue and entry of an appropriate order. Following a hearing after remand, the trial court found that no Batsonviolation occurred. Finding that the trial court's decision in this regard is not clearly erroneous and believing that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion, the trial court's decision is affirmed by this summary order. Rule 30.25(b). Since the trial court's rulings on the Batson motion are affirmed, defendant's sentence is vacated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a resentencing hearing pursuant to the instructions in Pickett I, supra, 926 S.W.2d at
875. All concur. Footnote: FN1.All statutory references are to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise indicated. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Statutes
- RSMo § 558.019cited
section 558.019, RSMo
Rules
- Rule 30.25cited
Rule 30.25
Cases
- in state v pickett 926 sw2d 872cited
In State v. Pickett, 926 S.W.2d 872
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.