Case summaries for May 15-21, 2026

Appellate | Civil | Criminal | DWI | Family | Post-conviction

Appellate

Attorney fees awarded for frivolous appeal 
Rules of appellate practice protected appellate court neutrality. Appellate briefs had to describe error in the tribunal below clearly enough for appellate courts and other parties to address the matters at issue. The appellant’s brief failed to comply with requirements for the statement of facts, points relied on, preservation statements, and arguments. And the appellant’s continuous litigation of matters already decided showed that the litigation was meritless and subject to sanctions. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and awarded attorney fees against the appellant and appellant’s counsel. 
(Overview summary) 
Larry Rice, Appellant, v. Armstrong Teasdale, et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113700

Civil

Forum non conveniens discussed
The doctrine of forum non conveniens gave circuit courts discretion to dismiss an action over which they had jurisdiction and authority. The plaintiff respondent had no burden of proof on a motion to dismiss. The movants defendants had to carry the burden of proof with “weighty considerations”. As to party nexus to Missouri, the plaintiff made no challenge, so that factor supported dismissal. As to forum selection clauses in transactions related to — but not the source of — the action, those clauses did not apply. As to public interest and the burden on the circuit court, the movants offered no evidence. As to locations of witnesses and alternative forums, potential numbers did not control, especially when discovery was incomplete, parties had not yet named any witnesses, and travel was necessary whichever forum tried the action. As to party residence to Missouri, the defendants operated and were registered in Missouri. As to where the claims accrued and their nexus to Missouri, the circuit court used variants of those standards, so it misapplied the law. On those facts, no oppression of the defendants appeared, and the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the motion to dismiss. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the action. 
(Overview summary)
Miramar Financial Holdings, LLC, Appellant, v. RBCD Ventures, LLC, et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113698

Criminal

Batson challenge rejected
Race-neutral reasons for striking a black venire person included service on other criminal juries, even if the State was wrong about the number, which the struck juror’s white counterpart did not have. Race-neutral reasons for striking a black venire person included that person’s profession, all members of which the State struck. The appellant did not show any prejudice from brief and isolated evidence of an uncharged bad act. The defendant waived jury sentencing by failing to object to sentencing from the bench, so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review of sentencing without a jury. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jkai S. Mabin, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113014

Conviction vacated 
In an action by a prosecuting or circuit attorney to seek to set aside a conviction previously obtained by that office, the office had the burden to prove actual innocence or constitutional error at the original trial or plea that undermines the confidence in the judgment by clear and convincing evidence. Such evidence specifically included the record at proceedings on a writ of habeas corpus. When the State disclosed an investigator as a person having knowledge late, and refused to produce the investigator for a deposition, excluding that person’s testimony was no abuse of discretion; at least, not when the subject of the investigation was present. Substantial evidence supported the judgment and contrary evidence was irrelevant on appellate review. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
In re: Circuit Attorney, 22nd Judicial Circuit ex rel. Christopher Dunn, Respondent, v. State of Missouri, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112933-01

Standard for appellate review of criminal convictions discussed 
Appellate review for sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction meant looking at the evidence that supported the conviction and ignoring any contrary evidence. The elements that the State had to prove included that the victim was under 14 years old when the events alleged occurred. The victim’s testimony that she was pre-teen satisfied that burden, and victim’s testimony equivocating on that matter was irrelevant on appellate review. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Guthrie, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC101373

No jail time credit was due 
When a petition failed to state a claim, there was no claim on which to reach the merits, so a dismissal for failure to state a claim never reached the merits of the petition. The circuit court purported to dismiss the appellant’s petition for failure to state a claim but really issued a judgment on the pleadings, so appellate review employed the standard for judgment on the pleadings de novo. When the sentence for an offense was confinement, credit was due only for jail time related to that offense. Therefore, no credit accrued for any time at which a separate basis for confinement existed. During the time for which the appellant sought credit, the appellant was confined while awaiting trial on more than one offense, and that fact negated the credit. Also, credit was due only for time confined within the State, or outside the State if caused solely by the State. That did not include facts used to enhance a federal sentence even if the State alleged them. In the appellant’s petition for declaratory relief, the appellant alleged facts on which the appellant was not entitled to relief. The circuit court denied relief and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Samuel D. Thornbury vs. Missouri Department of Corrections
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88105

Sua sponte intervention discouraged 
Circuit court’s restraint from sua sponte intervention rarely resulted in plain error because sua sponte intervention could cause more problems that it solved. The State’s argument on the credibility of witnesses did not misstate the burden of proof. And submitting approved instruction negated any prejudice. No plain error occurred when the circuit court refrained from sua sponte intervention in the State’s argument. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. 
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri vs. Tomorren D. Garrett
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87095

DWI

Probable cause included hearsay 
When a driver refused a breath test and the Director of Revenue revoked that driver’s license on that basis, judicial review was limited. The Director had the burden to show that the circuit court should affirm the revocation. The elements of the Director’s case included the probable cause to believe that driver had been operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Probable cause meant “what the arresting officer had reasonable grounds for believing occurred” rather than “what actually occurred [.]” That included out-of-court statements from witnesses. Such witnesses’ credibility was not relevant. The circuit court affirmed the revocation and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Jonathan Olson vs. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD88241

Family

Deemed performance negated contempt
Judgment had to be clear enough to enforce. The circuit court’s partial assignment of military benefits to the appellant was clear enough to enforce, despite ordering neither party to apply for that change, because federal law provided that either party could apply. Orders to pay child support pendente lite constituted judgments that, when not appealed, were subject to enforcement by execution or contempt. The circuit court denied the appellant’s motion for contempt, and that ruling had support in evidence of the amounts that the appellant received, using equitable authority to disregard the characterization assigned such amounts. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
In Re the Marriage of: John B. Cadwalader vs. Melissa L. Cadwalader
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD87695

Post-conviction

Speedy trial relief was not likely 
To state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, the movant had to allege deficient performance and resulting prejudice. The movant cited the trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The movant never asked counsel to file such a motion, participated in much of the delay, did not allege any date when trial ceased to be speedy, and did not allege any facts constituting prejudice from the failure to file. Specifically, the movant could not show that such a motion was likely to find a favorable ruling. The movant also cited trial counsel’s failure to seek a mistrial when the movant appeared in court wearing shackles. But the movant did not allege any facts that described any resulting prejudice. And the charges were bench-tried. The same judge presided at the criminal trial and on the motion. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Christopher L. Gates, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED113683

Overwhelming evidence of guilt negated relief 
When charging ineffective assistance of counsel, the movants had to show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient performance, the movant would have been acquitted. The movant charged trial counsel with failing to make a motion to strike a witness’s statement. But the Missouri Court of Appeals already ruled on direct appeal that, even without the statement, the evidence overwhelmingly showed the movant’s guilt. The movant could not argue theory again in a motion for post-conviction relief. And trial counsel’s failure to preserve error in the admission of evidence was never grounds for relief. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Travis Groce vs. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD87994