Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District Digest: Oct. 25, 2021

Civil Practice

Rule 84.04

Whistleblower Complaint

Where appellant inmate challenged the dismissal of his petition, which was captioned “Whistle Blower Complaint” and alleged violations of law by the Department of Corrections, for failure to state a claim, the pro se brief failed to comply with the briefing requirements of Rule 84.04, so the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal is dismissed.

Walker v. Precythe (MLW No. 77490/Case No. WD84121 – 7 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Gabbert, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Cole County, Green, J. (Keith Edward Walker, pro se) (Cara L. Harris, Springfield, MO for respondents).

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181275

Criminal Law

Post-Conviction Relief

Timeliness

Abandonment

Where a defendant challenged the denial of her motion for post-conviction relief, the amended Rule 29.15 motion was untimely filed by her appointed counsel, and the motion court failed to conduct an abandonment inquiry, so the judgment is reversed and remanded for such an inquiry.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

Wright v. State (MLW No. 77491/Case No. WD84046 – 8 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Ardini Jr., J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jackson County, Midkiff, J. (Nancy A. McKerrow for appellant) (Shaun Mackelprang for respondent).

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181274

Juvenile Law

Juvenile Detention

Electronic Monitoring

Assault

Where a juvenile brought an appeal after being ordered to be committed to a juvenile detention facility, the appeal was not rendered moot by her release from detention since she remained on probation and a decision in her favor would release her from the restrictions of probation, and the determination of whether the juvenile acted recklessly in assaulting a staff member was properly based on an objective reasonable person standard rather than a subjective test that included her personal life experiences, and the judgment is affirmed because the trial court properly found that the juvenile did not act in self-defense and the evidence was sufficient to show that the juvenile was required to wear electronic monitoring equipment to support a finding that she tampered with the equipment.

Judgment is affirmed.

In the Matter of: M.L.H. v. Juvenile Officer (MLW No. 77489Case No. WED84193 – 16 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Ahuja, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Buchanan County, Robb, J. (Jeffrey C. Esparza, Kansas City, MO for appellant) (Shariece L. Canaday, St. Joseph, MO for respondent).

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181277