William Cooper, Appellant, v. Dora B. Schriro, et al., Respondents.
Decision date: Unknown
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: William Cooper, Appellant, v. Dora B. Schriro, et al., Respondents. Case Number: 79380 Handdown Date: 11/25/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Randolph County, Hon. Channing Blaeuer Counsel for Appellant: William Cooper Counsel for Respondent: Office of Attorney General Opinion Summary: Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. All concur. Opinion: Cooper was convicted of second degree murder and is confined by the department of corrections. Following his conviction, statutes were enacted requiring Cooper to provide a blood sample for DNA profiling analysis. Sections 650.050 to 650.057, RSMo. Cooper refused to provide the required blood sample. He filed this declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that he was not subject to the DNA profiling analysis statutes enacted after the time of his offense. The circuit court found that section 650.055, RSMo, was lawful. It also determined that the petition for declaratory judgment and judicial review was without merit and denied relief. While this action was pending, Cooper concurrently was pursuing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the court of appeals, seeking a determination that he was not subject to the challenged statutes. The court of appeals denied relief. Cooper v. Gammon, 943 S.W.2d 699 (Mo. App. 1997). This Court finding no error of law in this case and determining that an opinion would have no precedential value in light of the decision in Gammon, the trial court's judgment is affirmed by this memorandum decision. Rule 84.16(b).
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. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976
Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.