WALTER DEAN WARING, Appellant, vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent.
Decision date: April 7, 2015SD33507
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- WALTER DEAN WARING
- Respondent
- STATE OF MISSOURI
Judges
- Opinion Author
- James R. Bickel
- Trial Court Judge
- James R
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"reversed","scope":null}
- {"type":"remanded","scope":null}
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
WALTER DEAN WARING, ) ) Appellant, ) ) vs. ) No. SD33507 ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) FILED: April 7, 2015 ) Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CEDAR COUNTY
Honorable James R. Bickel, Judge
(Before Francis, P.J./C.J., Bates, J., and Scott, J.)
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
PER CURIAM. Walter Waring timely filed an indigency affidavit and pro se motion for Rule 24.035 relief from his felony DWI convictions. The motion court summarily denied relief without appointing counsel for Waring, who claims this was error. The state agrees, as do we. "When an indigent movant files a pro se motion, the court shall cause counsel to be appointed for the movant." Rule 24.035(e). Such appointment "is mandatory." Ramsey v. State, 438 S.W.3d 521, 522 (Mo.App. 2014). "A motion court that
2 dismisses a pro se Rule 24.035 motion without appointing counsel commits clear error." Id. See also Wilson v. State, 415 S.W.3d 727, 728 (Mo.App. 2013). We reverse, remand, and direct the motion court to appoint counsel for Waring and proceed further after that appointment. Id.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 24.035cited
Rule 24.035
Cases
- id see also wilson v state 415 sw3d 727cited
Id. See also Wilson v. State, 415 S.W.3d 727
- ramsey v state 438 sw3d 521cited
Ramsey v. State, 438 S.W.3d 521
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.