Case summaries for Oct. 11-18, 2024

Appellate | Criminal | Family | Post-conviction | Utilities

Appellate

Brief’s appendix explained
Rule required the appellant’s brief to include “a separate appendix containing the judgment from which the party appeals, including the relevant findings of fact and conclusions of law filed [in the trial-level tribunal,] complete text of all statutes, ordinances, rules of court, or agency rules claimed to be controlling as to a point on appeal.” That requirement, and others, remained unfulfilled after multiple opportunities to correct deficiencies, dismissal of the appeal, and reinstatement of the appeal. “Failure to file an appendix is sufficient grounds for dismissal of the appeal.” The appellant’s brief remained so deficient as to prevent impartial appellate review, so the Missouri Court of Appeals again dismissed the appeal.
(Overview summary)
Kenneth Rosa, Appellant, v. State of Missouri Dept. of Social Services Children's Div., Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112003

Criminal

Forgery Conviction Affirmed in Attempted Fake Urine Sample Case
The statute defining possession of a forging instrument was broad enough to include a contrivance intended to provide a fake urine sample for drug testing. “[R]easonable inferences from the evidence presented” supported a jury’s conclusion that defendant intended to fake a urine sample by bringing a squeeze bottle of yellow liquid in his pocket to a drug test. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. AUGUSTE H. ROHDE, Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District - SD38395

Family

Self-employed income discussed
A rule specifically preserved the right to enter a limited appearance without waiving any challenge to personal jurisdiction. The defendant entered a limited appearance to challenge personal jurisdiction via a motion to dismiss so, even though the circuit court denied that motion, a later motion did not waive that challenge. After multiple issuances of summonses and multiple attempts at service, service of process occurred within the time required by rule from the issuance of the respective summons. That date set the earliest time for retroactive abatement of child support for failure to send documentation on higher education. Such abatement was within the circuit court’s discretion, which the circuit court did not abuse. Pre-trial proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law did not constitute a request for written findings of fact and conclusions of law; and, even if it did, the judgment was sufficiently detailed to avoid prejudice. Any error in denial of discovery on financial information was invited when the parties agreed as to which financial information to use. A party who agreed to a transfer of property could not appeal it and, even if that party could appeal, no prejudice occurred where the transferred property remained dedicated to the agreed purpose. The merits of such transfer was “outside the record.” Rule included the form for calculating child support, including imputation of income, to which a comment allowed judicial notice of specified published statistics. The circuit court did not err in calculating income for a self-employed parent. Stale evidence could not support a finding on income, but the record showed that an old loan application went only to impeachment and was not substantive evidence. Expanding the record was impossible once an appeal started. 
(Overview summary)
Evita Tolu, Appellant, vs. Robert J. Stientjes, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112115

Post-conviction

Points relied on departed from motion
The motion’s “bare assertions and conclusions” about the parties’ lawyers were “substantially different from” the movant’s points relied on, thus waiving the points. And the points relied on discussed evidence that was cumulative; challenged lay testimony as if it were expert testimony; and challenged trial counsel’s choice not to object to damaging evidence, which an objection would merely have highlighted, and so constituted a reasonable trial strategy.
(Overview summary)
Raymond Ordoukhanian, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED111752

Utilities

County assent necessary for lines
One statute barred counties from excluding public utilities while another statute required the approval of, and compliance with the construction standards, county authorities. The two provisions were not irreconcilable, and the latter-enacted statute did not repeal the earlier-enacted statute by implication. Whether construction would occur was up to the Public Service Commission while how the construction would occur around public roads was up to the county. The circuit court held that no county assent was necessary, so the Missouri Court of Appeals reversed that portion of the judgment and otherwise affirmed the judgment. 
(Overview summary)
Grain Belt Express, L.L.C. vs. Chariton County, Missouri
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86613