Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District Digest: Feb. 23, 2023

Criminal Law

Expungement

Multiple Felonies

Respondent appealed the judgment of the trial court that expunged multiple offenses, including two felonies, from petitioner’s criminal record.

Because the law imposed a lifetime expungement limit of one felony conviction, the trial court erred in expunging two felonies from petitioner’s record. The court remanded to allow petitioner to choose which felony conviction he wished to expunge.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

N.M.C. v. Missouri State Highway Patrol Criminal Records Repository (MLW No. 79471/Case No. ED110683 – 13 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Quigless, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Hearne, J. (William Dunker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant) (Jess W. Ullom and Michael J. Doster, for respondent)

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192637

Guilty Plea

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Petitioner appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion. Petitioner, who had pled guilty to second degree murder and armed criminal action, alleged that his plea counsel was ineffective for coercing petitioner to enter an unknowing and involuntary guilty plea.

Where the sentencing court specifically asked petitioner to comment on counsel’s performance and petitioner stated on record that he was satisfied with counsel, his present claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were refuted by the record.

Judgment is affirmed.

Jackson v. State (MLW No. 79473/Case No. ED110501 – 9 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Stevens, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Waldemer, J. (Gwenda Renee Robinson, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant) (Andrew Bailey, Attorney General, and Kelsey E. McGee, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent)

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192635

Post-Conviction Motion

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Petitioner appealed the denial of her post-conviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Petitioner sought relief from her conviction for child abuse/neglect that resulted in the death of her six-week-old child.

Where there was no evidence from discovery or witness testimony that there was an alternative explanation for the child’s death, counsel did not conduct a deficient investigation, and any additional information that counsel could have presented at sentencing would likely not have reduced petitioner’s sentence.

Judgment is affirmed.

Hendricks v. State (MLW No. 79474/Case No. ED110418 – 21 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Sullivan, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Charles County, Cunningham, J. (Michael R. Durham and William J. Swift, for appellant) (Gregory L. Barnes, for respondent)

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192634

Suspended Probation

Revocation

Petitioner appealed the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion. Petitioner had pled guilty to three drug offenses and was sentenced to 120 days’ incarceration followed by five years of probation. Petitioner’s probation was suspended in November 2015 and revoked in April 2019. On appeal, petitioner argued that the sentencing court lacked authority to revoke his probation because it had expired on his discharge date and had not notified petitioner before revocation.

Where suspension of probation tolled the running of the probationary period and suspended compliance credits, petitioner’s probation had not yet revoked and thus the sentencing court could revoke petitioner’s probation.

Appeal is dismissed.

Watkins v. State (MLW No. 79472/Case No. ED110551 – 9 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Stevens, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Audrain County, Lamb, J. (Katharine P. Curry, for appellant) (Alex D. Beezley, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent)

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192636

Domestic Relations

Adoption

Termination of Parental Rights

Parents appealed the termination of their parental rights to their child to clear the way for the child’s adoption by prospective adoptive parents. The child was placed in protective custody and later placed in foster care with prospective adoptive parents after investigators found the child covered in deep rashes and mother failed to comply with their instructions to take the child to urgent care. After several years of reunification efforts, prospective adoptive parents sought to terminate parents’ rights to permit adoption.

Although the trial court rendered findings of fact in support of termination of parents’ rights, it erred in failing to obtain an investigation and social study following filing of the termination petition and instead relied upon a five-year-old investigation from a separate termination proceeding involving parents.

Judgment is reversed and remanded.

In the Interest of: F.S.K. (MLW No. 79470/Case No. ED110706 – 14 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Quigless, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Jefferson County, Rathert, J. (Larry D. Thomason, Jr., for appellant) (Derrick R. Good, for respondent)

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192638