OTT LAW

State of Missouri vs. Clayton Nathaniel Parsons

Decision date: July 23, 2013WD75289

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.

Syllabus

STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent,

v.

CLAYTON NATHANIEL PARSONS,

Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

WD75289

OPINION FILED: July 23, 2013

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Nodaway County, Missouri The Honorable Roger M. Prokes, Judge

Before Division Three: Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge and Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Clayton Parsons ("Parsons") appeals his conviction following a jury trial of the Class A misdemeanor of domestic assault in the third degree. Parsons complains that the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to call witnesses to establish an alibi defense as a sanction for his late endorsement of the witnesses when less drastic remedies would have been sufficient to prevent prejudice to the State. The point of error raised by Parsons lacks merit, and a formal, published discussion related thereto would serve no jurisdictional purpose. Accordingly, we affirm Parsons's conviction by summary order

2

pursuant to Rule 30.25(b). A memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision on this point has been provided to the parties. We have determined it necessary, however, to exercise our authority, sua sponte, to amend the trial court's written judgment to correct a clerical error. This opinion addresses only the amendment of the trial court's judgment. Parsons was charged by amended information with the class B felony of domestic assault in the first degree, the class C felony of domestic assault in the second degree, and armed criminal action. The jury acquitted Parsons of Count I (domestic assault in the first degree and the lesser included offense of domestic assault in the second degree). The jury acquitted Parsons of Count II as to the charge of domestic assault in the second degree, but convicted him on that same Count of the lesser included offense of domestic assault in the third degree (a misdemeanor). The jury acquitted Parsons of Count III (armed criminal action). Parsons was sentenced to one year of incarceration in the Nodaway County Jail. Though Parsons was convicted of domestic assault in the third degree following a trial by jury, the written judgment of conviction entered by the trial court indicates that Parsons was "Found Guilty upon a plea of guilty" of this class A misdemeanor. The judgment form has a series of "boxes" to be checked to reflect the disposition of each count against a defendant. Here, the incorrect box was checked, and the box that should have been checked--"Found Guilty by a jury/court"--was not.

3

"The error on the judgment form is a clerical error, which is clearly discernable from the record. As such there is a basis to support the amendment of the judgment nunc pro tunc in order to correctly reflect [Parsons'] conviction[]." State v. Allison, 326 S.W.3d 81, 95 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010); see Rule 29.12(c). The clerical error on the judgment form should be corrected to evidence the actual judgment rendered by the trial court "but not carried into or properly recorded in the record." Andrae v. Andrae, 171 S.W.3d 170, 172 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). No purpose would be served in remanding this case for entry of an amended judgment to correct this conceded clerical error. Instead, we elect to exercise the power we are afforded by Rule 30.23 to enter such judgment as the court ought to give to finally dispose of this case. Allison, 326 S.W.3d at 95. The trial court's written judgment is amended by this Opinion to reflect that as to Count 2, Parsons was "Found Guilty by a jury/court." The sentence previously imposed on Count 2 is unaffected by this amendment.

__________________________________ Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

All concur

Related Opinions

Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

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 v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,516 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,993 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