Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of two counts of second-degree murder and two counts of armed criminal action. The court held (1) the circuit court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on self-defense as to felony murder because, for felony murder, Defendant was not prosecuted for his use of force; and (2) as to Defendant’s argument that the circuit court erred in submitting instructions on the felony murder for the second-degree murder counts, Defendant failed to establish plain error and, furthermore, was not prejudiced. View "State v. Oates" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the motion court overruling Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief under Rule 29.15, holding that Appellant’s argument that his appellate counsel was ineffective was unavailing.Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder. On appeal, appellate counsel did not raise as points of error the trial court’s rejections of Appellant’s requested jury instructions. In his Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief, Appellant argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these issues. The motion court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that appellate counsel’s performance was not constitutionally deficient because appellate counsel did not fail to exercise the customary level of skill and diligence of a reasonably competent attorney. View "Meiners v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder and armed criminal action, holding that the circuit court did not err by refusing to submit a self-defense instruction.In State v. Smith, 456 S.W.3d 849, 852 (Mo. 2015), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that if substantial evidence is presented of the elements of self-defense, the issue is injected and self defense must be submitted by instructing the jury that the State has the burden of proving a lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err in refusing the self-defense instruction because Defendant did not meet his burden of producing evidence sufficient to inject self-defense in his case. View "State v. Bruner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the motion court overruling Defendant’s Mo. R. Crim. P. 29.15 motion for postconviction relief alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his criminal proceedings, holding that counsel failed to timely file an amended motion.Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery, resisting arrest, and second-degree trafficking. After unsuccessfully pursuing an appeal, Defendant filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief under Rule 29.15. A special public defender entered her appearance on Defendant’s behalf and then filed a motion for leave to file amended answer. The motion court granted the motion. The Supreme Court held that Defendant’s counsel untimely filed the amended motion under Rule 29.15, resulting in a presumption of abandonment. The court remanded the matter for a determination of whether Defendant was abandoned. View "Watson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of the class C felony of possession of a controlled substance, holding that there was insufficient evidence Defendant knew of the presence of the controlled substance for which she was convicted of knowingly possessing.On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court erred in overruling her motion for judgment of acquittal and entering judgment and sentence against her because the State did not present sufficient evidence that Defendant knowingly possessed the methamphetamine found by law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Defendant knew or was aware of the methamphetamine recovered by the officers. View "State v. Gilmore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the motion court’s judgment dismissing Appellant’s Rule 24.035 motion, which was filed one day late, as untimely.On appeal, Appellant argued that a narrow exception applies to allow the date filing of pro se motions for post-conviction relief because the public defender who assumed the duty of filing the pro se motion actively interfered with the filing of the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the motion court’s judgment dismissing the motion as untimely, holding that the third-party interference exception did not apply in this case because Appellant did not prepare the motion himself or take any steps to ensure the motion was filed on time. View "Propst v. State" on Justia Law

Article I, section 35 of the Missouri Constitution, which protects “the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming and ranching practices” does not create a new constitutional right to engage in the illegal drug trade.Defendant appealed his convictions of producing more than five grams of marijuana, possession of more than five grams of marijuana with intent to distribute, and possession of drug paraphernalia, arguing that the statutes prohibiting marijuana cultivation and possession violate the constitutional right to farm guaranteed by article I, section 35. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain, ordinary, and natural meaning of article I, section 35 demonstrates no purpose to sub silentio repeal laws criminalizing the cultivation or possession of controlled substances; and (2) Defendant’s marijuana cultivation operation was not a farming practice to be protected by article I, section 35. View "State v. Shanklin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder, felony abuse of a child, and forcible sodomy. The circuit court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for murder and to consecutive sentences of life imprisonment for felony child abuse and forcible sodomy. The Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in (1) admitting evidence of Defendant’s juvenile adjudication for lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor; and (2) admitting evidence that pornographic websites were viewed on Defendant’s cellular telephone and computer. View "State v. Prince" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted writs of prohibition directing the circuit court to vacate its orders sustaining Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 29.12(b) motions and amending the stealing convictions and sentences of Jesse Nelson and Jack Walker II, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the Rule 29.12(b) motions and amend the judgments.Nelson and Walker pleaded guilty to the class C felony of stealing property worth $500 or more. Both defendants were placed on probation. The Supreme Court subsequently held that the offense of stealing could not be enhanced to a felony pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 570.030.3(1). Thereafter, Nelson and Walker filed motions pursuant to Rule 29.12(b) seeking to amend their convictions and sentences to reflect that stealing property worth $500 or more was a class A misdemeanor. The circuit court sustained the motions and amended the judgments in both cases. The prosecuting attorney sought writs of prohibition directing the circuit court to vacate its orders. The Supreme Court granted the requested relief, holding that the plaint language of Rule 29.12(b) does not provide for an independent post-sentence procedure, and therefore, the circuit court’s action taken after imposing the sentences was a nullity and void. View "State ex rel. Zahnd v. Honorable James W. Van Amburg" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court concluded that the circuit court exceeded its authority by sustaining Robby Ledford’s Rule 29.07(d) motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to felony stealing and resentencing him as a misdemeanor offender. In his Rule 29.07(d) motion, Ledford claimed his conviction and sentence for felony stealing were unlawful and constituted manifest injustice pursuant to State v. Bazell, 497 S.W.3d 263 (Mo. banc 2016). The circuit court sustained the motion, issued an order amending the stealing charge from a felony to a class A misdemeanor, and resentenced Ledford. The Supreme Court made permanent a preliminary writ of prohibition, holding that the circuit court’s order erroneously assumed that Bazell applies retroactively, and therefore, Ledford’s claim was both procedurally defaulted and substantively meritless. View "State ex rel. Fite v. Honorable Laura Johnson" on Justia Law