Case Summary for October 27, 2015

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for October 27, 2015

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

Attached to the following docketed cases are electronic copies of briefs filed by the parties. These electronic briefs have been converted to PDF to accommodate various word processors. If you do not already have Acrobat reader, which is necessary to open the PDFs, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website. (A set of free tools that allow visually disabled users to read documents in Adobe PDF format is available from access.adobe.com.) These briefs do not reflect any opinion of the Court about the appropriateness of the format of the briefs or the merits of the case, nor are they official court records. Copies of all briefs filed with the Court are available at the Supreme Court Building in the court en banc division.

The attachments below may not reflect all briefs filed with the Court, the complete filing or the format of the original filing. Appendices and other attachments generally will not be posted here. To see what documents have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

9:30 a.m. Tuesday, October 27, 2015
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC94936
State of Missouri v. Raymond Robinson
St. Louis city
Constitutional validity of felon-in-possession law after amendment to right to bear arms
Listen to the oral argument:

SC94936.mp3
The state was represented during arguments by Aaron Levinson of the circuit attorney’s office in St. Louis; Robinson was represented by Patrick R. Kutz of the public defender’s office in St. Louis.

In August 2014, voters approved an amendment to article I, section 23 of the state constitution. The revised section, which took effect in September 2014, requires “strict scrutiny” review of any law that restricts an individual’s right to bear arms. The revised section 23 further provides that nothing in the section shall be construed to limit the legislature from enacting laws limiting the rights of “convicted violent felons.”

In July 2014, the state initiated a criminal case against Raymond Robinson under section 571.070, RSMo, which defines the crime of felon in possession of a firearm. The state alleged that Robinson previously had been convicted of the felony of unlawful use of a weapon and that he knowingly possessed a .380 semiautomatic handgun. Robinson moved to dismiss the charge, alleging that section 571.070 is unconstitutional and fails the “strict scrutiny” review required by the revised article I, section 23. Following a January 2015 hearing, the circuit court in February 2015 dismissed the charge with prejudice (precluding it from being refiled). The court held that, even though the alleged offense occurred and the state’s prosecution of the offense began before the effective date of the revised article I, section 23, the revised provision governs. The court then held that section 571.070 is unconstitutional as applied to Robinson. The state appeals.

This appeal asks this Court to determine the constitutional validity of section 571.070 as applied to Robinson. The issue for the Court is whether this statute passes “strict scrutiny” as used in the revised article I, section 23 or is narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling governmental interest such as public safety and reducing firearms-related violence. A related question is whether the phrase “convicted violent felon” in the amended constitutional provision prevents the legislature from prohibiting all other felons from possessing firearms.

Several entities filed briefs as friends of the Court. One group, which includes the city of St. Louis, focuses on law enforcement’s use of section 571.070 as a tool for reducing gun violence. The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation argues in part that the state had authority to expand the fundamental right to keep and bear arms beyond what is provided by the federal constitution. The Freedom Center urges the Court to consider the history and context in which Missouri voters amended article I, section 23, to give meaning to every word of the amendment, and to apply the most stringent version of strict scrutiny.

SC94936_State_Brief.pdf

SC94936_Robinson_Brief.pdf

SC94936_State_reply_brief.pdf

SC94936_St._Louis_city_et_al_amici_brief.pdf

SC94936_ACLU_Amicus_brief.pdf

SC94936_Freedom_Center_amicus_brief.pdf

SC94954
State of Missouri v. Pierre Clay
St. Louis city
Constitutional validity of felon-in-possession law after amendment to right to bear arms
Listen to the oral argument:

SC94954.mp3
The state was represented during arguments by Veronica Harwin of the circuit attorney’s office in St. Louis; David E. Roland of the Freedom Center of Missouri in Mexico, which filed a brief as a friend of the Court, was granted leave to argue on behalf of Clay.

Like SC94936, discussed above, this case also involves a prosecution under section 571.070, RSMo, and a subsequent appeal challenging the constitutional validity of that statute under the newly amended version of article I, section 23 of the state constitution.

In this case, the state charged Pierre Clay in February 2015 with unlawful possession of a firearm under section 571.070 as well as possession of marijuana. The state alleged Clay knowingly had possessed a revolver and previously had been convicted of the felony of unlawful use of a weapon. Clay filed a motion to dismiss the firearm possession charge, alleging it was unconstitutional under the amended version of article I, section 23. The circuit court in April 2015 dismissed the firearm possession charge, with prejudice, holding section 571.070 was unconstitutional as applied to Clay because he had no record of violence and his only prior conviction was for carrying a concealed weapon. The state appeals.

The issues presented in this case are substantially the same as those presented in SC94936, above. Clay further asks the Court to consider the development of article I, section 23 in the context of historic racial discrimination as well as certain criminal justice statistics – including vehicle stops and incarceration rates – indicating racial disparity.

The same entities filed briefs, as friends of the Court, in this case as in SC94936 and make substantially the same arguments.

SC94954_State_brief.pdf

SC94954_Clay_brief.pdf

SC94954_St._Louis_city_et_al_amici_brief.pdf

SC94954_ACLU_Amicus_brief.pdf

SC94954_Freedom_Center_amicus_brief.pdf

SC94989
State of Missouri v. Steve Lomax
St. Louis city
Constitutional validity of felon-in-possession law after amendment to right to bear arms
Listen to the oral argument:

SC94989.mp3
The state was represented during arguments by Veronica Harwin of the circuit attorney’s office in St. Louis; Lomax was represented by Marissa Ulman of the public defender’s office in St. Louis.

Like SC94936, discussed above, this case also involves a prosecution under section 571.070, RSMo, and a subsequent appeal challenging the constitutional validity of that statute under the newly amended version of article I, section 23 of the state constitution.

In this case, the state charged Steve Lomax in August 2014 with unlawful possession of a firearm under section 571.070 as well as possession of a controlled substance and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia. The state alleged Lomax knowingly had possessed a 9-milimeter semiautomatic pistol and previously had been convicted of the felony of stealing. Lomax filed a motion to dismiss the firearm possession charge, alleging it was unconstitutional under the amended version of article I, section 23. Following a March 2015 hearing, the circuit court dismissed the firearm possession charge, with prejudice, holding section 571.070 was unconstitutional as applied to Lomax. The state appeals.

The issues presented in this case are substantially the same as those presented in SC94936, above.

The same entities filed briefs, as friends of the Court, in this case as in SC94936 an make substantially the same arguments.

SC94989_State_Brief.pdf

SC94989_Lomax_brief.pdf

SC94989_State_reply_brief.pdf

SC94989_St._Louis_city_et_al_amici_brief.pdf

SC94989_ACLU_Amicus_brief.pdf

SC94989_Freedom_Center_amicus_brief.pdf

SC95032
In re: Radford Reuben Raines III
St. Charles County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95032.mp3
The chief disciplinary counsel was represented by his deputy, Sam S. Phillips, of Jefferson City; Raines was represented by Michael P. Downey of the Downey Law Group LLC in St. Louis.

This case involves allegations of professional misconduct against St. Charles County attorney Radford (Skip) Raines III largely related to workers compensation settlements he obtained for clients he took over for an attorney (and friend) who died about a decade ago. Raines’ law license previously has been admonished for failing to respond to disciplinary investigations and suspended for failure to pay his state income taxes. In 2012, this Court suspended Raines’ license for violations of the rules of professional conduct, stayed the suspension and placed Raines on probation. After he failed to meet conditions of his probation, the Court in 2014 revoked Raines’ probation and suspended his license. At this time, he is not eligible to practice law in Missouri.

As to the current case, the chief disciplinary counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings against Raines. Specific allegations involve the manner in which he deposited and paid out settlement funds for 10 clients as well as a levy the internal revenue service placed on the account Raines held in trust for his clients after Raines failed to pay his federal income taxes. Following a hearing, a disciplinary hearing panel found Raines had violated various sections of the rules of professional conduct. Specifically, the panel found he violated Rule 4-1.1, relating to competence; Rule 4-1.3, relating to diligence; and Rule 4-1.15, governing an attorney’s accounting of funds held in trust for clients. The panel also concluded Raines acted with fraud, misrepresentation, deceit or dishonesty in violation of Rule 4-8.4(c), regarding dishonesty. It recommended that Raines be disbarred. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to disbar Raines.

This case presents two related questions for the Court – whether Raines violated the rules of professional responsibility as determined by the disciplinary hearing panel and, if so, whether circumstances in aggravation and mitigation of discipline support disbarment or suspension.

SC95032_chief_disciplinary_counsel_brief.pdf

SC95032_Raines_brief.pdf