Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Bowman pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of receiving stolen property. Although restitution was not originally a condition of Bowman’s probation, the State filed a motion to modify Bowman’s probation by adding a condition of restitution. The State alleged that Bowman should pay the victim to compensate her for the items that were stolen from her apartment but not recovered from Bowman. The trial court granted the State’s motion and modified the terms of Bowman’s probation to add a condition that he pay the requested restitution. Bowman sought a writ of prohibition, arguing that the trial court lacked authority to add the restitution condition because Mo. Rev. Stat. 559.105.1 only authorizes restitution for losses connected to the offense for which he was charged - possession of stolen property. The Supreme Court issued a preliminary writ of prohibition, which it made permanent, holding that because the State failed to show that the victim’s unrecovered losses were “due to” Bowman’s offense, the trial court lacked the authority to require Bowman to require restitution as to these losses as a condition of his probation. View "State ex rel. Bowman v. Honorable Inman" on Justia Law

When William Fleming failed to pay his court costs within the first three years of his probation, Fleming’s probation was revoked and execution of his concurrent seven-year sentences was ordered. Fleming filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the sentencing court violated his due process and equal protection rights by revoking his probation solely because he was indigent. The Supreme Court issued a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the sentencing court’s revocation of Fleming’s probation violated Fleming’s Fourteenth Amendment rights because the court failed to inquire into the reasons for Fleming’s failure to pay his court costs. View "State ex rel. Fleming v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole" on Justia Law

Charles Zimmerman filed a petition for writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court from holding a revocation hearing. The court of appeals denied the writ. Zimmerman then filed a writ petition with the Supreme Court. While the writ was pending, the circuit court held Zimmerman’s probation revocation hearing and concluded that Zimmerman violated the terms of his probation. The Supreme Court subsequently issued a preliminary writ of prohibition commanding the circuit court to take no further action in the matter. Zimmerman argued that the circuit court had no authority over him under Mo. Rev. Stat. 559.036.8 because his probation terminated by operation of law years before the probation revocation hearing. The Supreme Court made the preliminary writ in prohibition permanent and directed the circuit court to discharge Zimmerman from probation, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion and exceeded its authority in holding Zimmerman’s probation revocation hearing because it failed to make every reasonable effort to conduct a hearing prior to the expiration of the probationary period. View "State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Honorable David Dolan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first-degree burglary, misdemeanor stealing, and driving while revoked. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for first-degree burglary and that the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting testimony that demonstrated Defendant’s propensity to engage in criminal activity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of first-degree burglary; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of uncharged misconduct on the basis that it had a “legitimate tendency to directly establish the defendant’s guilty of the charge for which he [was] on trial.” View "State v. Naylor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of second-degree statutory rape and the class D felony of incest. Appellant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed. Appellant later filed a pro se motion for postconviction DNA testing pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 547.035. The circuit court overruled and denied Appellant’s motion. Appellant was not notified of any proceedings in his case and requested additional information. The circuit court failed to provide the requested information. On appeal, the court of appeals, sua sponte, determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the circuit court’s docket entry was not denominated a judgment. The Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed and remanded, holding that there could be no meaningful appellate review due to the circuit court’s failure to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Mo. Rev. Stat. 547.035.8. View "Mercer v. State" on Justia Law

David DePriest and Natalie DePriest, brother and sister, were charged separately with offenses arising from their cultivation of marijuana plants. The DePriests were represented by the same counsel throughout their separate criminal proceedings. The DePriests jointly pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea deal on counsel’s recommendation. The trial court accepted both DePriests’ pleas. Thereafter, the DePriests filed separate motions for postconviction relief pursuant to Mo. R. Crim. P. 24.035, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel continued to represent both of them long after it became clear during the plea negotiations that there was an actual conflict of interest between them. The motion court denied both motions without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the motion court’s judgments and remanded the cases for further proceedings, holding that both David and Natalie alleged sufficient facts to state a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Rule 24.035, and therefore, the motion court erred in denying the DePriests an evidentiary hearing. Remanded. View "DePriest v. State" on Justia Law

The court quashed its preliminary writ of prohibition to consider relator's claim that the new rule of evidence set forth in the 2014 amendment to article I, section 18(c) of the Missouri Constitution could not be applied in his upcoming trial because the crimes with which he is charged occurred before the effective date of that constitutional amendment. The court held that article I, section 18(c) applies to all trials occurring on or after the effective date of the amendment, regardless of when the crimes are alleged to have occurred; claims that the trial court applied this new rule of evidence improperly, or that a proper application of this rule nevertheless violates the defendant’s substantive rights under the state or federal constitutions, are not before the court in this proceeding; and such objections must be properly raised and preserved during trial and properly presented on appeal if the defendant is convicted. View "State ex rel. Kendrick Tipler v. The Honorable Michael Gardner" on Justia Law

After a court-tried criminal trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of a chemical with the intent to manufacture a controlled substance. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State did not present sufficient evidence that he possessed pseudoephedrine at the time detectives searched his residence. The evidence established that Defendant actually possessed pseudoephedrine on the date of the offense, despite the fact that no pseudoephedrine was found at Defendant’s residence at the time the detectives conducted their search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a reasonable inference drawn from the circumstances of this case is that Defendant actually possessed pseudoephedrine on the date of the offense. View "State v. Twitty" on Justia Law

In a court-tried case, Defendant was found guilty of second-degree assault and armed criminal action. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the circuit court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence that Defendant attempted to cause physical injury by means of a dangerous instrument, and therefore, the circuit court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Further, because Defendant’s second point on appeal was predicated on the success of his first point, it was also denied. View "State v. Ransburg" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested and charged with possessing and attempting to use as genuine a forged social security card. Defendant was being held without bail, as provided in his arrest warrant. Counsel for Defendant subsequently filed a motion asking the trial court to release Defendant on his own recognizance or, alternatively, to set reasonable conditions for his release. The trial court overruled the motion pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 544.470.2. Defendant sought review, arguing that section 544.470.2 violates article I, section 20 of the Missouri Constitution because the last sentence of the statute prohibits the trial court from considering conditions for a defendant’s release under Mo. Rev. Stat. 544.455 unless and until the defendant proves his “lawful presence in the United States.” The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the wholesale denial of pretrial release for an entire class of defendants under section 544.470.2 violates the right to reasonable and individualized bail set forth in article I, section 20. Remanded with directions that the trial court consider reasonable conditions for Defendant’s release using the individualized procedure set forth in Mo. Rev. Stat. chapter 544 and Mo. R. Crim. P. 33. View "Lopez-Matias v. State" on Justia Law