Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and armed criminal action. Appellant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant later filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief. After Appellant’s public defender entered his appearance, post-conviction counsel filed an amended motion on Appellant’s behalf. The motion court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment denying Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief, holding (1) Appellant’s amended motion for post-conviction relief was timely filed; and (2) trial counsel was not ineffective. View "Hopkins v. State" on Justia Law

Wife appealed the trial court’s judgment dissolving her marriage to Husband, challenging the court’s distribution of marital property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) equitably divided the marital assets and debts in a manner that is definite and capable of enforcement; (2) did not err in assigning no present value to Husband’s defined benefit pension plan through the Missouri Local Government Employees Retirement Benefit Plan; and (3) properly considered the factors in Mo. Rev. Stat. 452.330 and did not err in ordering Wife to pay Husband an equalization share. View "Landewee v. Landewee" on Justia Law

A Bank provided loans to owners of eight condominium units. All eight owners became delinquent on their loans to the Bank and failed to make timely payments on the property owners’ association’s (POA) assessments. The Bank foreclosed on its deeds of trust and purchased all eight properties. The POA demanded payment from the Bank for all new assessments on the properties it purchased and demanded that the Bank pay past due assessments. The Bank sought relief by filing a declaratory judgment action and an action for monetary damages caused by the POA’s alder of the Bank’s title to the properties. The trial court entered partial summary judgment in favor of the Bank, declaring that the Bank was not obligated to pay past due assessments by the POA on properties the Bank purchased at a foreclosure sale. The trial court certified its order for immediate appeal and reserved judgment on Bank’s slander of title count. The POA appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked the authority to review the trial court’s partial judgment because the judgment did not dispose of a distinct judicial unit, and therefore, it was not a final judgment for purposes of Mo. Rev. Stat. 512.020(5). View "First National Bank of Dieterich v. Pointe Royale Property Owners' Association, Inc." on Justia Law

Owners Insurance Company issued Vicki and Chris Craig a policy with underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. Vicki was injured in an accident when her vehicle was struck by a vehicle driven by another motorist. Vicki incurred damages exceeding $300,000. Shelter Insurance, which insured the at-fault motorist, paid the Craigs $50,000. The Craigs then sought from Owners $250,000, the declarations listed UIM limit amount. Owners paid the Craigs $200,000, citing the off-set provisions that allowed them to deduct the amount paid by Shelter. Thereafter, Owners sought a declaratory judgment over the disputed $50,000. The circuit court ruled that the policy was ambiguous and entered summary judgment in favor of the Craigs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the policy unambiguously provides for the $50,000 set-off, that the policy never promised to pay up to the full amount listed in the declarations, and that the declarations did not promise coverage. Remanded. View "Owners Insurance Co. v. Craig" on Justia Law

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

Shelter Mutual Insurance Company issued the Swadley family a policy with underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. The policy’s declarations page listed “100,000 Per Person” as the UIM limit. After Angela Swadley was killed in a collision, the Swadleys made a claim to Shelter pursuant to their policy’s UIM coverage. When Shelter denied the claim, the Swadleys filed a petition against Shelter. The circuit court ruled that the policy was ambiguous, entered partial summary judgment in favor of the Swadleys and awarded the Swadleys $100,000. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the policy unambiguously precluded UIM coverage from applying to the Swadleys’ claim. View "Swadley v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co." 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

When Child was not yet one year old, Grandfather filed a petition to establish a guardianship and conservatorship jointly in two cousins, alleging that Mother was unable or unfit to assume the duties of guardianship. After a hearing, the trial court found Mother unable and unfit to properly care for Child and ordered the issuance of letters of guardianship and conservatorship to the two cousins as co-guardians. Mother appealed, arguing that the trial court had utilized the wrong burden of proof and that due process requires proof of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mo. Rev. Stat. 475.030.4 requires proof of inability or unfitness by a preponderance of the evidence, and Mother failed to preserve her argument that the statute is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court’s judgment ordering the issuance of letters of guardianship and conservatorship was supported by substantial evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Mother’s motion for a continuance. View "In re A.L.R." on Justia Law