Justia Missouri Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Ryan Amorine sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from holding a probation revocation hearing after Amorine’s term of probation expired. On May 4, 2011, Amorine pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and second-degree domestic assault. After accepting his guilty plea, the trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Amorine on supervised probation for five years. The trial court also imposed special conditions upon Amorine, which included community service and paying court costs. In 2013, a probation violation report was filed alleging that Amorine failed to pay his court costs or report any community service hours. Amorine admitted the violation in an attachment to the probation violation report. A second probation violation report was filed in 2014, again alleging Amorine failed to pay his court costs or perform his community service hours. The trial court suspended Amorine’s probation and set the matter for a hearing. At the hearing, Amorine admitted to the violation. The court extended Amorine’s probation for an additional year. In early 2015, the Board of Probation and Parole filed a “Case Summary Report” and a “Field Violation Report.” Both documents informed the court that Amorine had an earned discharge date of July 13, 2015, and with continued supervision compliance, an optimal discharge date of April 1, 2015. Both reports also indicated that the only violation of Amorine’s probation was his failure to report any community service hours he performed and the failure to pay his court costs. However, the Field Violation Report recommended that the trial court revoke Amorine’s probation, place him on a new term of suspended execution of sentence probation, direct him to pay his court costs, and perform community service work. In 2015, the court issued an order suspending Amorine’s probation. The docket sheets reflected that the court continued and rescheduled the probation revocation hearing several times in 2015; both Amorine and the state appeared at every court date. By fall 2015, Amorine, his counsel, and the state all appeared for another probation revocation hearing, but the cause was passed again. The court continued to hold case reviews on December 15, 2015, and February 17, 2016, and scheduled the next case review for April 19, 2016. The Supreme Court concluded that the facts and circumstances in this case demonstrated "unequivocally" that it needed to exercise its discretion to issue a writ of prohibition to remedy an excess of authority. The Supreme Court concluded the trial court exceeded his authority in continuing Amorine’s probation revocation hearing indefinitely after Amorine should have been discharged. Therefore, the preliminary writ of prohibition was made permanent, and the trial court was directed to discharge Amorine from probation. View "Missouri ex rel. Ryan Amorine vs. Honorable Kelly Wayne Parker" on Justia Law

Peggy Stevens McGraw and Samuel C. Jones filed suit alleging the State erroneously implemented the 2010 compensation schedule adopted by the Missouri Citizens' Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials pursuant to Mo. Const. art. XIII, sec. 3. They claimed that as a result of this error they were underpaid for their services, which also resulted in underpaid retirement benefits. The trial court dismissed with prejudice all counts raised by the appellants, and the Supreme Court affirmed that dismissal. The Supreme Court found the trial court correctly concluding that appellants' claims were based on an interpretation of art. XIII, sec. 3 that was incorrect as a matter of law and that retirement benefits were properly calculated. View "McGraw v. Missouri" on Justia Law

Rachel Johns sought the Democratic party’s nomination for Missouri State Representative in the District 76. She filed a declaration of candidacy with the Missouri Secretary of State, in which she stated under oath, that she “will qualify” to hold the office of state representative pursuant to the Missouri Constitution’s requirements for that office. Respondent Joshua Peters, another candidate for the Democratic party’s nomination for Missouri State Representative in the District 76, filed a petition pursuant to section 115.526, RSMo 2000, seeking to disqualify Johns as a candidate and have her name removed from any official election ballot. Peters argued that Johns could not meet the two-year durational voter registration requirement of article III, section 4 of the Missouri Constitution because she did not register to vote until February 4, 2015, which was less than two years before the general election date of November 8, 2016. Although Johns agreed that she did not meet the two-year voter registration requirement, she argued that such requirement is constitutionally invalid as applied to her. The circuit court determined that the voter registration requirement did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. Johns appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed: "The State’s justification for the durational voter registration requirement’s burden on voting rights is the same as the justification it offers for the burden on Johns herself. The State’s interests in regulating the fairness of its elections and ensuring that candidates for state representative demonstrate sufficient seriousness about the electoral systems and social and civic engagement are legitimate. The two-year durational voter registration requirement is rationally related to those interests and a reasonable method of furthering them. Accordingly, article III, section 4 does not violate the First Amendment voting rights of the voters of District 76." View "Peters v. Johns" on Justia Law

Appellant was a federal employee with a health insurance plan governed by the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act (FEHBA). Appellant filed suit against Group Health Plan, Inc. and ACS Recovery Services, Inc. (collectively, Respondents) after Respondents enforced a subrogation lien against the proceeds from Appellant’s settlement of a personal injury claim. The trial court entered summary judgment for Respondents, concluding that FEHBA preempts Missouri anti-subrogation claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that 5 U.S.C. 8902(m)(1) of FEHBA does not preempt Missouri law prohibiting subrogation of personal injury claims. The United States Supreme Court vacated the Court’s decision and remanded for a determination as to whether a new regulation promulgated by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) established the FEHBA preempts Missouri’s anti-subrogation law. The Supreme Court held that the OPM regulation did not establish that FEHBA preempts Missouri law prohibiting the subrogation of personal injury claims. Remanded. View "Nevils v. Group Health Plan, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of two counts of statutory sodomy in the first degree. Thereafter, Appellant filed a Mo. R. Crim. P. 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to verdict directors that allegedly violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict and for failing to hire an expert to testify at the sentencing hearing. The motion court overruled Appellant’s motion for post-conviction relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant established that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to two insufficiently specific verdict directors, and therefore, the motion court clearly erred in denying post-conviction relief. Remanded. View "Hoeber v. State" on Justia Law

After a fifth jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence on direct appeal. Appellant later filed an amended Mo. R. Crim. P. 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief asserting six broad grounds for relief. Appellant’s public defender was subsequently permitted to withdraw as Appellant’s post-conviction motion counsel. Another public defender remained as counsel for Appellant, and two other public defenders also entered their appearance as his counsel. The circuit court overruled Appellant’s post-conviction motion, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a motion requesting the post-conviction court to find that he had been abandoned by his post-conviction counsel and asking for permission to supplement his amended post-conviction motion with additional claims. The motion court overruled Appellant’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s postconviction counsel did not abandon him during post-conviction proceedings under Missouri’s definition of “abandonment.” View "Barton v. State" on Justia Law

Krispy Kreme sought a refund for sales tax it had remitted on retail sales of donuts and non-hot beverages between April 2003 and December 2005, arguing that not more than eighty percent of its food products were sold for immediate consumption on or off the premises of the establishment, and therefore, the lower tax rate authorized by Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.014 applied to its food sales. The Administrative Hearing Commission (AHC) ruled that Krispy Kreme was not entitled to a refund, determining that the lower tax rate did not apply to Krispy Kreme’s food sales. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Krispy Kreme failed to prove that sales of food prepared for immediate consumption did not constitute more than eighty percent of its total gross receipts and failed to show it was entitled to a lower tax rate under section 144.014. View "Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corp. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

The Director of Revenue assessed use tax on the service charges Bartlett International Inc. and Bartlett Grain Co., LP (collectively, Bartlett) paid to install a grain conveyor at one of its grain elevators in Missouri. The Administrative Hearing Commission determined that the Director improperly assessed tax on the disputed charges. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the service charges were subject to use tax because they were part of the sale of tangible personal property under Mo. Rev. Stat. 144.605(8); and (2) Bartlett failed to show that the disputed charges were subject to a statutory exemption or exclusion. Remanded. View "Bartlett Int’l, Inc. v. Dir. of Revenue" on Justia Law

Joseph Mickels died from an incurable, terminal brain tumor. Mickels’ family (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought a wrongful death action against Defendant, a physician, for negligently failing to diagnose the tumor. Plaintiffs presented evidence that even though Mickels certainly would have died of his brain tumor with or without Defendant’s alleged negligence, he would not have died as early as he did had the brain tumor been properly diagnosed. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that Plaintiffs could not establish that Defendant’s negligence caused Mickels’ death so as to be actionable under Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.080.1. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that Plaintiffs cannot sue for wrongful death under section 537.080.1, but the allegations in the petition do state a cause of action for negligence that would have been actionable under Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.020 if brought by Mickels’ personal representative. Remanded. View "Mickels v. Danrad" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a negligence action against Defendant and Defendant's employer, a motel, to recover for injuries Plaintiff sustained while staying at the motel. The parties entered a settlement agreement, but the parties disputed some terms of the agreement. Plaintiff filed a separate action against Defendant seeking specific performance and reformation of the written instrument and asking the court to add to disputed terms that Plaintiff claimed the parties agreed to but mistakenly failed to reduce to writing. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and reformed the written agreement to require Defendant to preclude Defendant’s insurer from controlling the defense of Plaintiff’s negligence claims and to cooperate with Plaintiff in the negligence action “either by agreeing to a consent judgment or having an uncontested hearing on liability and damages.” The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment as modified, holding that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s judgment reforming the written instrument to include the disputed terms but that the parties did not intend for Defendant to enter a consent judgment. View "Hunter v. Moore" on Justia Law