State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willie Gibbs, Appellant.
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. Willie Gibbs, Appellant. Case Number: No. 70492 Handdown Date: 07/08/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Sherri B. Sullivan Counsel for Appellant: David Simpson Counsel for Respondent: John Munson Moris, III and Gregory L. Barnes Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: Before Russell, P.J.; Simon and Karohl, JJ. Opinion:
O R D E R Defendant, Willie Gibbs, appeals from the sentences imposed after a jury verdict finding him guilty of seven offenses in a single indictment for his involvement in three robberies consisting of two counts of first degree robbery and armed criminal action, one count of first degree assault, one count of first degree robbery, one count of armed criminal action, one count of first degree robbery and one count of armed criminal action. He was sentenced to three life sentences and two fifteen year sentences to be served concurrently, and two sentences of fifteen years to run concurrent with each other but consecutive to the other sentences. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. A memorandum solely for the use of the parties involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our holdings. 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. 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.