Todd W. Lincoln vs. Missouri Department of Corrections
Decision date: July 31, 2009WD69097
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
TODD W. LINCOLN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) WD69097 ) MISSOURI DEPARTMENT ) Opinion Filed: July 31, 2009 OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI The Honorable Jon E. Beetem, Jr., Judge
Before: Harold L. Lowenstein, Presiding Judge, Joseph M. Ellis, Judge and Lisa White Hardwick, Judge
On May 22, 2006, Todd Lincoln was incarcerated in the Missouri Department of Corrections ("DOC"). On that date, he filed a petition for declaratory judgment alleging that the DOC had improperly calculated his mandatory minimum prison term percentage for one of his sentences because, in part, the DOC was incorrectly including a sentence that was stipulated to a long-term drug treatment program under § 217.362 1 as a "previous commitment" under § 558.019.
1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2000 unless otherwise noted.
2 On April 2, 2007, the court entered an Amended Judgment granting partial summary judgment in favor of Lincoln and granting the DOC's motion to dismiss as to the remainder of his claims. The court granted Lincoln's motion for summary judgment in part by ordering the DOC not to deem his December 21, 2001 commitments as "previous commitments" for the purposes of § 558.019 and ordering the DOC to recalculate Lincoln's minimum prison term percentage accordingly. On April 25, 2007, Lincoln filed a "Motion for Reconsideration and Partial Relief from Judgment" and an "Emergency Motion for Contempt, Sanctions and Costs Against Respondent." The court held a hearing on the motions but did not rule on them within ninety days, so the motions were deemed overruled by operation of law on July 24,
- Rule 81.05(a). This appeal follows.
After briefing, argument, and submission, this court was informed that Lincoln was paroled from custody on July 7, 2009. "A cause of action is moot when the question presented for decision seeks a judgment upon some matter which, if the judgment was rendered, would not have any practical effect upon any then existing controversy." Bank of Washington v. McAuliffe, 676 S.W.2d 483, 487 (Mo. banc 1984)). Since Lincoln is no longer incarcerated, the case is moot and must be dismissed. Underwood v. Director of Mo. Dep't of Corr., 215 S.W.3d 326, 327 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). Appeal dismissed.
________________________________ Joseph M. Ellis, Judge All concur.
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.