Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Mar 10, 2026
James McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault and property damage, raising two unpreserved claims of error concerning the admission of prior threats and the amount of the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund (CVC) judgment. The appellate court declined plain error review for the evidence admissibility claim, finding no manifest injustice. However, it granted plain error review for the CVC judgment, concluding the trial court erred by imposing a $46 judgment for a Class E felony, which was not authorized by the applicable statute at the time of the offense. The court modified the CVC judgment to $10 and affirmed the judgment as modified.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Feb 25, 2026
Russell Kenneth Clancy appealed his conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim, arguing there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted recklessly when he punched a law enforcement officer. The incident occurred during an altercation where Clancy, who was intoxicated, became belligerent and resisted arrest. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that the trial testimony and body camera footage provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude Clancy acted recklessly.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Feb 24, 2026
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing the state failed to prove one of his prior offenses was an intoxication-related traffic offense (IRTO) for chronic offender enhancement. The circuit court had sentenced Peters as a chronic offender based on four prior IRTOs, including a 2002 municipal offense. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing, holding that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 2002 offense involved physically driving or operating a vehicle, as required by the current definition of "driving" for IRTOs.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 17, 2026
Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction after a bench trial for violating a full order of protection. He argued the State's evidence was insufficient to prove he had legal or actual notice of the order. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of Nytes's presence at the order of protection hearing and his prior guilty pleas for violating the same order were sufficient to establish actual notice.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 17, 2026
Elizabeth M. Speer appealed her convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault, arguing the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and did not obtain a written waiver of counsel. The State conceded error on both points. The appellate court reversed Speer's convictions and sentences, remanding the case for a new trial, holding that the trial court failed to ensure a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel as required by the Sixth Amendment and Section 600.051.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 17, 2026
Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements made to police. Walton contended his Miranda waiver was involuntary due to police deception about the true nature of the investigation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Walton's waiver was voluntary because he was informed of his rights, understood them, and continued speaking with detectives, consistent with prior case law.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 10, 2026
Appellant Derrie Williams appealed the motion court's denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Williams argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to allow him to testify and for failing to investigate and call two witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that its findings of fact and conclusions of law were not clearly erroneous regarding both claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Feb 10, 2026
Daniel Williams appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate his mental state. Williams contended that such an investigation could have revealed mental health issues relevant to a diminished capacity defense. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding that Williams failed to demonstrate how additional information about his mental state would have aided his defense or satisfied the prejudice prong of the Strickland test.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Feb 3, 2026
James Eggleston appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, arguing insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly possessed methamphetamine found in a vehicle he was driving. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, clarifying that the plain language of the relevant statutes does not require "additional incriminating evidence" to establish possession in shared spaces, thereby rejecting prior case law. The Court found sufficient evidence that Eggleston was in actual possession of the methamphetamine and acted knowingly, supported by circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Feb 3, 2026
Amanda Rogers appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of her motion to suppress the firearm and ammunition. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The Court held that the state presented sufficient evidence of Rogers' knowing possession of the firearm, rejecting the requirement for 'additional incriminating evidence' in joint possession cases. It also found that law enforcement had probable cause for the vehicle search based on an informant's tip and other circumstances.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Feb 3, 2026
Carl Cameron Ferguson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, which alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call a specific witness. The motion court denied relief, finding Ferguson's pro se motion facially deficient and, alternatively, that the decision not to call the witness was reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed the motion court's judgment, agreeing that the pro se motion was deficient and that the trial counsel's decision was a matter of reasonable trial strategy.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 13, 2026
Harry Little appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief from convictions for murder, armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm. He claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call an alibi witness and failing to argue a specific alternate perpetrator. The motion court denied relief, finding counsel's decisions were reasonable trial strategy. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the alibi witness's testimony was not viable and that presenting a general alternate perpetrator theory was a reasonable strategic choice.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 13, 2026
Jeffrey Lematty appealed his convictions for first-degree rape and second-degree burglary, alleging instructional errors, improper admission and exclusion of evidence, and insufficient evidence for burglary. The appellate court reversed Lematty's second-degree burglary conviction, finding plain error in the verdict directing instruction that misstated the law by potentially excusing the State from proving the unlawful entry element. The court affirmed the first-degree rape conviction and all other challenged aspects of the trial court's judgment.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jan 13, 2026
The State of Missouri sought a writ of prohibition after the circuit court dismissed a felony DWI charge against Richard James Johnson, who was charged as a persistent offender. The circuit court found the persistent offender statute, section 577.023.2, facially unconstitutional for violating Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by requiring a judge, not a jury, to find predicate facts for sentencing enhancement. The Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the statute is not facially unconstitutional because existing procedural rules, such as Rule 27.02(s) and MAI-CR 4th 405.01, provide a mechanism for a jury to make the necessary findings. Therefore, the circuit court lacked authority to dismiss the charge.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Jan 13, 2026
Craig M. Wood appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief from his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence for the abduction and murder of Hailey Owens. Wood raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and judicial bias. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the motion court's judgment, finding its findings and conclusions were not clearly erroneous and that Wood failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance or prejudice.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Jan 6, 2026
Dustin Robinson appealed his conviction for felony resisting arrest, arguing that resisting arrest on an outstanding felony warrant should be classified as a misdemeanor, not a felony, under section 575.150.5(1) RSMo. Robinson contended that only warrantless arrests for a felony, or arrests on warrants for failure to appear or probation violations in felony cases, could support a felony resisting arrest charge. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that an arrest made pursuant to a warrant for a felony offense is still considered an arrest "for a felony" under the statute, regardless of whether the arrest was made with or without a warrant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 30, 2025
Jayelyn Rivers appealed his convictions for unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and resisting arrest, arguing that the State's evidence was insufficient to support the unlawful possession conviction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the State presented sufficient evidence to infer Rivers had actual, knowing possession of the firearm. This evidence included the gun's location under his seat, his superior access, its visibility, and his flight from law enforcement.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Dec 29, 2025
Isis S. Jones was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon after a jury trial. On appeal, Jones argued the circuit court plainly erred by accepting a jury verdict based on an instruction that varied from the charged offense, leading to an improper sentence. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining plain error review because Jones failed to establish that the alleged error was "facially evident, obvious, and clear," as shooting "into" a vehicle necessarily subsumes shooting "at" it.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Dec 29, 2025
Richard Neil Burkett was convicted of first-degree assault after a jury trial. On appeal, Burkett contended the circuit court erred by not submitting a self-defense instruction and by not giving a curative instruction regarding the State's closing argument. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, declining to review Burkett's unpreserved claims for plain error because he caused or contributed to the alleged errors and his claims were ill-suited for plain error review.
Supreme Court of Missouri / Dec 29, 2025
Israel Barrera moved to suppress urine test results obtained via two warrants in a sexual molestation case. The circuit court sustained the motion, finding a lack of probable cause for Warrant 1 and that the good-faith exception did not apply. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the suppression order, holding that the affidavit for Warrant 1 provided a substantial basis for probable cause, particularly due to corroborative details of the victim's medical examination. The Court affirmed that Warrant 1 authorized both seizure and search, rendering Warrant 2 unnecessary, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 23, 2025
Emonne Dillon appealed his convictions for second-degree murder, unlawful use of a weapon, and armed criminal action, stemming from a fatal shooting that occurred during a brawl. Dillon argued the trial court erred by refusing his non-MAI instructions on imperfect self-defense, denying his motion to strike a juror for cause, and admitting hearsay testimony. The appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions, juror selection, or the admission of the challenged statement.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 23, 2025
Demetrius L. Davis appealed the motion court's denial of his amended Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The State argued the motion court erred in reviewing Davis's untimely amended motion after finding he was abandoned by unappointed post-conviction counsel. The appellate court agreed, holding that the abandonment doctrine applies only to appointed counsel, not counsel who voluntarily entered an appearance. Therefore, the motion court lacked authority to review the untimely amended motion and should have only reviewed the timely filed pro se motion. The appeal was dismissed for lack of a final judgment, and the case was remanded for adjudication of the pro se claims.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 16, 2025
Billy Wagner appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. The motion court had applied the incorrect version of Rule 29.15(g) to determine the deadline for filing an amended motion and failed to adjudicate all claims in Wagner's pro se motion. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment, holding that the version of Rule 29.15 in effect at sentencing governs and that the abandonment doctrine does not apply to retained counsel.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 16, 2025
Shawn Ray Hollingshead appealed his jury convictions for statutory sodomy and child molestation, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by allowing an undisclosed rebuttal witness to counter his alibi defense. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that Hollingshead failed to provide proper notice of his intent to rely on an alibi defense, which relieved the State of its duty to disclose the rebuttal witness. Furthermore, the court found that his wife's testimony did not constitute a true alibi because it did not account for his whereabouts for the entire charging period.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 9, 2025
Preston Gremminger was convicted by a jury of two counts of statutory sodomy, one count of statutory rape, and two counts of incest, receiving a 128-year prison sentence. On appeal, Gremminger claimed the circuit court erred by excluding evidence of a victim's prior sexual abuse allegation, improperly admitting propensity evidence, and rejecting lesser-included offense instructions. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on these issues.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 9, 2025
W.M.H. appealed the juvenile court's judgment committing him to the Division of Youth Services after he was adjudicated delinquent for second-degree tampering and possession of a controlled substance. W.M.H. argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he purposely or knowingly rode unlawfully in another's automobile. The appellate court reversed the adjudication for second-degree tampering, finding the evidence insufficient to establish the requisite mental state, but affirmed the judgment otherwise.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 2, 2025
Barry E. Anderson appealed the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The motion court had found abandonment by counsel and reviewed his untimely amended motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the amended motion was untimely because the abandonment doctrine does not apply to unappointed counsel, and the motion court's post hoc appointment was invalid. However, the court affirmed the judgment because all claims in Anderson's timely pro se motion had been properly adjudicated.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Dec 2, 2025
Eric A. Pritchett appealed his convictions for stealing and two counts of burglary, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the value of stolen goods, the admission of screenshots under the best evidence rule, and the enhancement of his sentence as a persistent offender. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence to prove the value of the stolen laptops exceeded $25,000, and determined the best evidence rule was not violated because witnesses testified only about admitted screenshots, not the original unavailable video. The court also declined plain error review for the sentence enhancement, noting Pritchett was on notice of the State's intent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District / Nov 25, 2025
Oscar Ward was convicted of kidnapping and domestic assault. On appeal, Ward argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting a computer-enhanced 911 call that was disclosed to the defense only one week before trial. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the late disclosure did not result in fundamental unfairness or prejudice to Ward, especially since he did not request a continuance and the evidence was cumulative of other testimony.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District / Nov 12, 2025
Patrick Logan Pulse appealed his convictions for first-degree assault and armed criminal action, stemming from shooting a Lyft driver, arguing self-defense at trial. On appeal, Pulse challenged the admission of three pieces of evidence: a video of his arrest, a video of him in a police car post-arrest, and his hospital records showing controlled substances. He also claimed instructional error for the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the defense of others. The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the judgment, finding no merit to Pulse's claims of error regarding evidence admission or instructional error.