Case Summary for October 5, 2016

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for October 5, 2016

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. Wednesday, October 5, 2016
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

SC95666
David A. McNeal v. State of Missouri
St. Louis city
Postconviction relief from burglary conviction
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95666.mp3
McNeal was represented during arguments by Andrew E. Zleit of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Judge Edward R. Ardini Jr. – a judge of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – sat in this case by special designation in place of Judge George W. Draper III.

The state charged David McNeal with one count of second-degree burglary and one count of misdemeanor stealing, accusing him of knowingly and unlawfully entering an apartment and stealing an electric drill. At a September 2008 jury trial, McNeal confessed to the stealing count but denied he had a “burglar’s intent” when he entered the apartment. He was found guilty of both charges and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 10 years in prison for the burglary charge and 150 days in jail for the stealing charge. He subsequently sought postconviction relief, which the circuit court ultimately denied after an evidentiary hearing. McNeal appeals.

This appeal raises one primary question for the Court – whether McNeal’s trial counsel provided effective assistance and, if not, whether McNeal’s constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel, due process, fair trial and to present a defense were violated. Related to this are issues of whether McNeal’s counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction for the lesser-included offense of first-degree trespass; whether there was a strategic reason for not doing so; whether, had the jury been given this option, there was a reasonable probability it would have found McNeal guilty of trespass rather than burglary; and whether McNeal was prejudiced as a result.

SC95666_McNeal_brief.pdf

SC95666_State_brief.pdf

SC95527
State of Missouri v. Rodney Creighton
St. Louis County
Postconviction relief from robbery, armed criminal action and resisting arrest convictions
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95527.mp3
Creighton was represented during arguments by Srikant B. Chigurupati of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Christine Lesicko of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Following an August 2011 jury trial, Rodney Creighton was found guilty, as a prior and persistent offender, of three counts of first-degree robbery, three counts of armed criminal action, and one count of felony resisting arrest for taking three women’s purses and their contents, a man’s wallet and its contents, currency and an automobile, all at gunpoint, and then fleeing police. The circuit court sentenced Creighton to concurrent prison terms of 25 years for each of the robbery counts, 10 years for each of the armed criminal action counts and seven years for resisting arrest. After the appeals court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, Creighton sought postconviction relief, and counsel later filed an amended postconviction motion on his behalf. The circuit court denied relief without a hearing. Creighton appeals.

This appeal raises two primary questions for the Court – whether Creighton’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and whether the circuit court should have held an evidentiary hearing regarding Creighton’s claims. Procedurally, one issue involves whether Creighton was abandoned by his postconviction counsel by filing the amended motion out of time. Substantively, one issue involves whether counsel was ineffective for failing to seek either a mistrial or the removal of a juror who Creighton alleges intentionally did not disclose that she thought she knew Creighton and had seen him somewhere before; whether this violated Creighton’s constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel, due process and a fair trial; and whether Creighton was prejudiced as a result. Another issue involves whether the circuit court should have reviewed Creighton’s pro se claims, which he alleges were attached to the amended motion counsel filed on his behalf.

SC95527_Creighton_brief.pdf

SC95527_State_brief.pdf

SC95665
Bruce Watson v. State of Missouri
St. Louis city
Postconviction relief from robbery conviction
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95665.mp3
Watson was represented during arguments by Matthew W. Huckeby of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the state was represented by Shaun J. Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Following a jury trial, Bruce Watson Jr. was found guilty of first-degree robbery for the July 2009 armed robbery of a check-cashing store. The circuit court sentenced him to 15 years in prison. After the appeals court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, Watson sought postconviction relief. The circuit court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing. Watson appeals.

This appeal raises one primary question for the Court – whether Watson’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and whether his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and due process were violated as a result. Related procedural issues involves whether the circuit court should have granted an evidentiary hearing regarding Watson’s claims or whether it should have dismissed his motion as untimely filed. Substantive issues involve whether Watson’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to submit jury instructions for the lesser-included offenses of second-degree robbery and stealing; whether, had the jury been so instructed, there is a reasonable probability the outcome of Watson’s trial would have been different; and whether Watson was prejudiced as a result.

SC95665_Watson_brief.pdf

SC95665_State_brief.pdf

SC95665_Watson_reply_brief.pdf

SC95595
In re: Michael Wayne Blum
Phelps County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95595.mp3
Alan D. Pratzel, the chief disciplinary counsel in Jefferson City, represented his office during arguments; Blum was represented by Sara G. Rittman of Rittman Law LLC in Jefferson City.

Attorney Michael Blum opened his own law firm in 2003 in Columbia. He was admonished in 2006. In September 2009, he was placed on a stayed suspension with probation, which he successfully completed in April 2012. In June 2013, Blum relocated to St. Robert and joined a firm with another attorney. One of the firm’s former paralegals made a complaint to the chief disciplinary counsel’s office, alleging a number of clients had paid for bankruptcy services, but no bankruptcies were filed on their behalf. The chief disciplinary counsel subsequently opened an investigation into the trust account in which Blum held client funds. Another former paralegal and a former client also filed complaints. The chief disciplinary counsel’s office investigation revealed the trust fund balance was too low given advance fees paid by clients for whom Blum had not yet filed cases. Blum alleges his law partner contributed to any problems with the firm’s trust account. The chief disciplinary counsel ultimately brought new charges of professional misconduct against Blum. Fifteen charges alleged violations of rules regarding Blum’s trust account; one alleged rule violations in Blum’s representation of a client in a personal injury matter; one alleged rule violations in Blum’s representation of a client in a divorce action; and one alleged Blum failed to provide information to the chief disciplinary counsel’s office. Following a November 2015 hearing, a regional disciplinary hearing panel concluded Blum violated the rules as charged in all but one of the trust account allegations and recommended that he be disbarred. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to discipline Blum’s law license.

This case raises two primary questions for the Court – whether the evidence shows Blum violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline is appropriate. A related issue involves whether the hearing panel should have provided discovery to Blum and, if so, whether another hearing panel should rehear the case before this Court considers its merits.

SC95595_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief.pdf

SC95595_Blum_brief.pdf

SC95595_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_reply_brief.pdf

SC95686
In re: Sean E. Bryant
St. Louis
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument:

SC95686.mp3
Alan D. Pratzel, the chief disciplinary counsel in Jefferson City, represented his office during arguments; Bryant, of St. Louis, represented himself.

A bank notified the chief disciplinary counsel’s office in June 2015 that the trust account in which St. Louis-area attorney Sean Bryant held client funds was overdrawn. The office’s subsequent investigation revealed that Bryant was addicted to alcohol and prescription drugs and had used some of a client’s money to purchase drugs, after which his brother contributed money to help cover the funds. The chief disciplinary counsel brought disciplinary charges against Bryant. At a February 2016 hearing, Bryant testified that he since has moved in with his brother in Columbia, goes to St. Louis as necessary to work on pending cases, no longer uses drugs, attends Narcotics Anonymous meetings and is remorseful for his actions. The regional disciplinary hearing panel concluded Bryant violated rules of professional responsibility with respect to his management of his trust account, had misappropriated client funds, and knowingly made a false statement of material fact to the disciplinary counsel’s office. The hearing panel found that Bryant had acted intentionally and that his client was harmed. It recommended that Bryant be disbarred. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to discipline Bryant’s law license.

This case raises two primary questions for the Court – whether the evidence shows Bryant violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.

SC95686_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief.pdf

SC95686_Bryant_brief.pdf