Walter Barton, Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownSC83615
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: Walter Barton, Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: SC83615 Handdown Date: 06/11/2002 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Benton County, Hon. Theodore B. Scott Counsel for Appellant: Elizabeth U. Carlyle Counsel for Respondent: Stephanie Morrell and John M. Morris Opinion Summary: Walter Barton sought post-conviction relief following this Court's affirmation of his conviction and death sentence. The motion court denied the relief Barton requested, and he appeals. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Court en banc holds: The findings and conclusions in this case relating to disclosure of the dismissal of a pending criminal charge in exchange for testimony by a state's witness are not specific enough. Because the findings and conclusions on this issue may cause other findings and conclusions to be changed, the judgment of the motion court is reversed, and the case is remanded. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED. All concur. Opinion: Findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court upon motion for post-conviction relief must be specific enough to permit meaningful appellate review. State v. Parker, 886 S.W.2d 908, 932 (Mo. banc 1994). The findings and conclusions in this case relating to disclosure of the dismissal of a pending criminal charge in exchange for testimony by a
witness for the state are not specific enough. As the findings and conclusions on this issue may cause other findings and conclusions to be changed, the judgment in this case is reversed. The cause is remanded for entry of new findings and conclusions as to all issues raised, including the issues raised in the "motion for new trial, reconsideration of order denying relief or to reopen for additional hearing." For this purpose the court may hold such hearings and receive such evidence as is necessary. Any order of this Court authorizing the appointment of the Honorable Theodore B. Scott as a senior judge with respect to this case is vacated. All concur. 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.