Case summaries for Aug. 21-27, 2026

Appellate | Civil | Criminal | Employment security | Family | Juvenile | Post-conviction | Post-conviction relief | Real estate

Appellate

No review of unpreserved matters without asking for plain error review
In any jury trial, to preserve error, parties must raise the matter contemporaneously and raise the matter again in a motion for new trial. Preservation also required citing the matter in a point relied on that was compliant with appellate rules. Appellate courts could not correct the appellant’s brief and rule on the appeal from there because those activities would constitute advocacy for the appellant. The appellants further had to file all portions of the record referenced in their briefs. The appellant claimed that the circuit court erred by overruling its objection to the defendant’s closing argument and sought a mistrial. The appellant’s motion for new trial cited the ruling on mistrial, which did not preserve error in ruling on the objection. The burdens of proof and standards of review for the rulings were different, and the appellant cited the wrong one for the objection. A point relied on citing awards for both future lost wages and future medical expenses was multifarious and preserved error in neither award. The appellant also cited differing standards of review in its point relied on associated argument. The appellant further failed to file transcripts to which it referred. The appellant preserved no error for review and appellate courts “will not sua sponte review for plain error [.]” The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
(Overview summary)
Tara Straussner, Respondent, v. City of St. Louis, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED114085

Judgment too vague for appellate review
Appeals were possible from final judgments. Judgments granting permanent injunctions were final only when, among other things, their provisions were “clear, precise, and definite” as to what was barred, and for how long, without reference to any other document. In an action to enforce a covenant not to compete, the plaintiff sought to bar the defendants from selling at retail online and from any brick-and-mortar location. The circuit court barred the opening of “a retail store” without stating whether that included online and for how long. The Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Pretzel Boys Licensing, LLC, Respondent, v. Pretzel Pretzel-Telegraph, LLC, Amber Scurlock, and Anthony Simmons, Appellants.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113968

Wrong reason, right result
An appellate court “will affirm the circuit court’s judgment ‘if it is correct on any ground supported by the record regardless of whether the circuit court relied upon it.’” The petitioner sought an exemption from registration as a sex offender and the circuit court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. That reasoning was erroneous because the constitution gave circuit courts jurisdiction over all matters civil and criminal. But the result was correct because statutes provided the conditions for that relief and the appellant did not meet those conditions. Couching the action as an action for declaratory judgment did not alter that result. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of dismissal.
(Overview summary)
Sherma Johnson, Appellant, v. Missouri State Highway Patrol, et al., Respondents.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113828

Deficient briefing required dismissal
Rules of appellate procedure preserved the appellate courts’ impartiality by avoiding speculation on the appellants’ theories. Non-compliant statement of facts, points relied on, and argument were so incoherent that they either failed to preserve or abandoned the appellant’s claims of circuit court error. After notice and opportunity to cure, the Missouri Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Tower Loan of Missouri, LLC, v. Michael Session
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88455

Civil

Voiding of judgment reversed
Circuit courts could grant relief from judgments, including default judgments, void for lack of due process. Due process included personal jurisdiction, which included notice and an opportunity to be heard, which occurred by service of process. Service of process on a person living outside of United States was possible under Missouri law but was also possible under the Hague Convention, which the plaintiff satisfied by delivery to the defendant through Scotland’s central authority. The central authority’s return of service constituted prima facie evidence of due process that the defendant failed to refute. A spelling error in the defendant’s name was a mere misnomer, not a misidentification, that the circuit court could correct at any time. “When summons is actually served on the correct party but by the wrong name, the error becomes immaterial because the correct party has notice of the suit." Once the party served defaulted, the circuit court could enter default, including an award of damages. “Defendant’s contention regarding the lack of probative evidence to support the award is a merit defense disguised as a due process argument.” The plaintiff’s affidavit supported the amount of damages awarded and, even if it didn’t, that would have been a mere error of law and not a jurisdictional error.
(Overview summary)
Mindy Reaves, Appellant, v. P. Harvey's Mold Lady and Construction Services, LLC, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED114152

Statutes determined standing
The plaintiffs had the burden to establish standing, meaning the legally protected interest necessary to file an action for relief. Missouri statutes determined standing for Missouri statutory actions, not United States caselaw, so that interest need not be in monetary damages. Statutes created a cause for action for a borrower whose lender did not timely file a release of lien. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff’s lender did not timely release the lender’s lien. That pleading alleged standing, so the circuit court erred in dismissing the action. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of reversal and remanded the action to the circuit court.
(Overview summary)
Robert J. Gallagher, Appellant, v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113806

Amended schedule did not extend time for response to summary judgment
On a motion for summary judgment, any numbered paragraph in the statement of undisputed facts that the responding party failed to deny constituted an admission. Circuit courts generally had authority to extend deadlines; and the rule governing summary judgment specifically contemplated discovery pending, and extensions of time for discovery for responding to, motions for summary judgment. None of those things happened in the parties’ action. The circuit court issued an amended schedule that extended the deadline for discovery and continued the trial date, but that order did not void the pending summary judgment motion, nor extend the time to respond to the motion. The appellant did not file a response to the motion, the circuit court deemed the movant’s allegations admitted and granted the motion, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgement.
(Overview summary)
Wendy Anderson v. Truman Medical Center, Inc. D/B/A University Health
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88285

Criminal

Reference to questions unanswered by the defense was okay
The elements of plain error review included an obvious error. An indirect reference to the defendant’s failure to testify could support reversal when the record showed a calculated intent to highlight the matter. But the State did not reference the defendant or failure to testify, only “unanswered questions” that the State attributed to the defense. The circuit court did not plainly err in refraining from intervening sua sponte so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph O. Fuller, Appellant.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113750

Trespass conviction affirmed
The elements of trespass in the first degree as charged included remaining on real property unlawfully. Unlawful presence did not require evidence of the title to real property, nor of the property’s metes and bounds. Evidence that another person had the right to use, possession, or occupancy was sufficient. Such evidence came from the occupant’s general manager and was sufficient to support the element of remaining unlawfully. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri v. Samuel David Todd Cornell
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88419

Circumstances implied knowledge
The elements of class E felony leaving the scene of an accident included knowledge that property damage had occurred. The State supported that element with evidence of a collision between the defendant’s vehicle and the victim’s vehicle, extensive damage to the victim’s vehicle, and the defendant’s flight from the collision. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri v. Jerry Cook
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88131

Appeal violated plea bargain
Plea bargains were contracts, in which “both parties relinquished rights and received benefits [,]” subject to equitable principles. Sentencing was a material provision. The appellant agreed to enhanced sentencing for some charges in exchange for dismissal of other charges including resisting arrest. The defendant’s post-judgment motion challenging the enhanced sentencing, though successful on appeal, constituted a breach of the agreement great enough to support rescission, so the circuit court did not err in denying enforcement of the dismissal. When the State re-filed the charge of resisting arrest, the State showed flight with arresting officer testimony, and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri v. Christopher Lynn Baker
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88023

No right to inform jury of consecutive sentence mandate
When considering their recommended sentences, juries cannot consider whether sentences could be concurrent or consecutive because that was a collateral matter for the judge alone. The sentences for the defendant’s offenses had to be consecutive, the circuit court barred the defense from mentioning that law during argument on sentencing, and that ruling was no abuse of discretion. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
(Overview summary)
State of Missouri v. Kam Deih Kap
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD87925

Employment security

No good cause to backdate benefits
Benefits began in the month of the filing of a claim unless the claimant showed good cause for starting them earlier. Good cause meant “beyond the reasonable control of the claimant and then only if the claimant acts as soon as practical.” That did not describe the claimant’s ignorance of the law allowing a claim while working part-time. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.
(Overview summary)
Sharonda White, Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED114000

Appellant must appeal the Commission’s dismissal, not the ALJ’s decision
An administrative law judge decided the claimant’s claim on the merits, the claimant filed a petition for review with the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, and the Commission dismissed petition for review for failure to appear. The Missouri Court of Appeals had authority only to review the Commission’s rulings. The claimant’s notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals challenged the ruling on the merits of the claim, not the Commission’s dismissal. Because the Commission never ruled on the merits of the claim and only dismissed the petition for review, the Court of Appeals had no authority over the merits of the claim. The Court of Appeals dismissed the notice of appeal.
(Overview summary)
Torie Nave v. Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Employer, and Division of Employment Security
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88602

Family

No new grounds alleged in motion to modify
Appellate courts affirmed dismissal on any ground charged in a motion to dismiss even if the circuit court did not rely on it. To support a motion to modify child custody, the movant had to show facts unknown at, or that arose since, the earlier custody order. The movant alleged a breakdown in communication and cooperation between the parties, but that was nothing new. “These parents have engaged in protracted and hostile litigation since 2018 when their child was less than a year old. Even accepting Father’s multiple averments in his motion as true, his allegations regarding Mother are hardly a surprise.” The circuit court dismissed the motion for failure to state a claim and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling.
(Overview summary)
James Bryan Steele, Jr., Appellant, v. Amanda Marie Perkins, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED114077

No Form 14, no appeal
Except when the appellants sought plain error review, appellate courts reviewed only preserved errors. To preserve error in awards of child support, parties had to file a Form 14 in circuit court. The appellant challenged the award of child support on appeal but did not file a Form 14 in circuit court and so failed to preserve the matter. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the award.
(Overview summary)
M.F., Appellant, v. S.B., Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113585

Juvenile

No colloquy was necessary to accept an admission of guilt
Plain error review was within appellate courts’ discretion for obvious errors that “seriously” undermined circuit court judgments by their effect on substantial rights. The rights of a juvenile in an adjudication hearing included the essentials of due process in a criminal action. The appellant juvenile did not show that those essentials included the colloquy due in circuit court to determine whether an admission was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. And the record showed that the appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made the admissions. No plain error occurred when the circuit court accepted the guilty plea so the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of commitment.
(Overview summary)
In the Interest of B.L., a Minor v. Juvenile Officer
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88431

Post-conviction

Overwhelming evidence of guilt negated prejudice
The movant had to show that counsel performed below professional standards. The movant cited the advice not to testify and failure to call the movant to testify. But the circuit court’s colloquy showed that the movant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to testify and that the waiver was strategic. The record showed that such strategy was sound because it avoided damaging cross-examination. Dealing with the State’s closing arguments in the defense’s closing argument, rather than objecting contemporaneously, was reasonable trial strategy. One point relied on alleging deficient performance by the appellate counsel as to three convictions was multifarious and preserved no errors. Also, no prejudice resulted from counsel’s alleged deficiencies because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Kevin M. Fields, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District - ED113721

Post-conviction relief

Refraining from an objection was sound strategy
Judgments on post-conviction relief motions were subject to reversal only when the whole record left appellate courts with a definite and firm impression that the circuit court had made a mistake. On a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the elements included deficient performance, which a reasonable trial strategy negated. When the claimed deficiency was the absence of an objection to evidence, trial counsel presumptively had a strategic reason for not objecting, even when trial counsel offered none. Trial counsel chose not to object to a witness’s testimony because it was likely to appear not credible and trial counsel was then able to further undermine the witness’s testimony on cross-examination. And, even if trial counsel’s performance were deficient, there was no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
ANDREW LUKE LEMASTERS, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39108

Witness would not have been helpful
Reasonable trial strategy negated claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Claims for ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on failure to call a witness required the movant to show that the witness was available and would have helped the movant “unqualifiedly.” As to both, the record supported a finding to the contrary and the circuit court found that the witness’s testimony in favor of the movant was not credible. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment.
(Overview summary)
Sadiq J. Moore v. State of Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District - WD88073

Real estate

Road remedy was an easement, not a transfer of ownership
Circuit courts could establish private roads when strictly necessary for access, but only with the least “damage or injury and . . . inconvenience as practicable to the owner or owners of the real property over which the private road shall pass.” Specifically, the road had to be a permanent easement appurtenant. The circuit court granted the private road in fee simple absolute, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, and remanded the action.
CLINT BOWEN, and MOGAN BOWEN, Respondents v. DYLAN ROEDER, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD39014