Timothy Dugger, Appellant v. Dora Schriro, Respondent
Decision date: UnknownWD57906
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Timothy Dugger
- Respondent
- Dora Schriro
Disposition
Dismissed
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 Western District Case Style: Timothy Dugger, Appellant v. Dora Schriro, Respondent Case Number: WD57906 Handdown Date: 06/13/2000 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Thomas J. Brown, III Counsel for Appellant: Timothy Dugger, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Cassandra Dolgin Opinion Summary: Timothy Dugger appeals the circuit court's judgment on the pleadings for the director of the Department of Corrections. He argues that he deserves to have 272 days of jail time credited against his nine-year prison sentence. DISMISSED. Division holds: The appeal is moot because the director concedes that Dugger should receive credit for 336 days in jail. Citation: Opinion Author: Paul M. Spinden, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Newton, P.J. and Smart, Jr., J., concur. Opinion: Timothy Dugger appeals the circuit court's judgment on the pleadings for Dora Schriro. Dugger, an inmate serving concurrent prison sentences for forgery and stealing, filed a declaratory judgment action contending that Schriro, director of the Department of Corrections, was using a policy concerning credit for jail time that she refused to disclose and was contrary to state law. He asserted that he should have received credit for 272 days in jail against his nine-year prison sentence. Schriro responds that, from her reading of Goings v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 6 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. banc
1999), she has determined that Dugger is entitled to jail time credit of 336 days and has credited him with this time. Dugger's appeal is, therefore, moot, and we dismiss it. 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.
Cases
- goings v missouri department of corrections 6 sw3d 906cited
Goings v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 6 S.W.3d 906
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.