Case Summary for October 9, 2001

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for October 9, 2001

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 DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE ELECTRONIC COPIES OF THE BRIEF(S) FILED BY THE PARTY OR PARTIES. THESE ELECTRONIC BRIEFS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO PDF BY THE COURT'S STAFF TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS WORD PROCESSORS. (If you do not already have the Acrobat reader, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website.) THE ATTACHMENTS MAY NOT REFLECT ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT, THE COMPLETE ELECTRONIC FILING, OR THE FORMAT OF THE ORGINAL FILING. GENERALLY, ONLY THE APPELLANT'S SUBSTITUTE, RELATOR'S, AND RESPONDENT'S SUBSTITUTE BRIEFS WILL BE POSTED; IF AVAILABLE, REPLY BRIEFS ALSO WILL BE POSTED. BRIEFS FROM THE COURT BELOW, APPENDICES, AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS WILL GENERALLY NOT BE POSTED HERE. (To determine whether or which briefs have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.) POSTING OF THE BRIEFS DOES NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE FORMAT OF THE BRIEFS OR THE MERITS OF A CASE. THESE POSTINGS ARE NOT OFFICIAL COURT RECORDS. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

Tuesday, October 9, 2001
________________________________________________________________________

SC83350
In the Matter of Estate of: Raymond Klauber, Incapacitated/Disabled
St. Louis County
Classification of involuntary dismissal in probate court

Clayton House Health Care filed a claim against the estate of Raymond Klauber for $25,799.53, but when it failed to appear at a hearing, the claim was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Clayton House filed the claim again, but the estate's conservator moved to dismiss the claim, arguing the previous dismissal was with prejudice. The probate court dismissed the claim pursuant to section 510.150, RSMo 1994, which provides that an involuntary dismissal is with prejudice unless the court specifies otherwise in its order.

Clayton House appeals, arguing the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure supercede any inconsistent statutes. It contends that the prior dismissal should be controlled by Rule 67.03, which provides that involuntary dismissals are without prejudice unless the court specifies otherwise in its order.

The estate responds that, under Rule 41.01, only certain rules apply to probate court proceedings. It argues that Rule 67.03 is not one of those rules that applies and, thus, the previous dismissal was with prejudice.

SC83455
State of Missouri ex rel. Robin Hilburn v. Sherry Staeden (Ladlee),
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Intervenor
Greene County
Constitutionality of child support enforcement statute; finality of judgment

The Oklahoma court that dissolved the marriage of Sherry Staeden and Robert Watson did not make any orders regarding child support, although the couple had three minor children. Three years later, Robin Hilburn applied for child support enforcement services for the three children, who then were living in her custody in Springfield, Mo. An administrative hearing officer ordered Staeden to pay $343 per month in child support and to provide health insurance for the children. The Division of Child Support Enforcement then issued an income withholding order, directing Staeden's employer to pay child support out of her earnings. Staeden sought judicial review from the circuit court, which ultimately vacated the administrative order because a judge appointed pursuant to article V of the state constitution did not sign it. The court also determined that section 454.490, RSMo, is unconstitutional because it allows an administrative order signed by a hearing officer to be enforced as though it were a judgment signed by a judge.

The attorney general, who has been permitted to intervene, argues the circuit court's order is final and appealable because it is signed by a judge and disposes of the claim for judicial review. The attorney general also contends that section 454.490 is constitutional. He argues that article V permits executive officials, such as the administrative hearing officer in this case, to perform judicial functions delegated to them by the legislature. The attorney general further argues that it is permissible for the division to collect child support by the same means used to collect a court judgment.

Staeden responds that this Court does not have jurisdiction because the circuit court's order is not a final judgment, as it does not dispose of all of the issues in her petition for judicial review and the circuit court did not express that an appeal should not be delayed. Staeden also argues that section 454.490 is unconstitutional because it allows an executive agency to enforce an administrative order. She contends the constitution gives the exclusive power to make and enforce judgments to the courts of the judicial branch.

SC83106
Brandon Hutchison v. State of Missouri
Lawrence County
Ineffective assistance of counsel; trial errors

Brandon Hutchison was convicted of the first-degree murders of brothers Ronald and Brian Yates in the early hours of New Year's Day 1996 fewer than 10 miles from the home of co-defendant Freddy Lopez in rural Lawrence County. Hutchison was sentenced to death for each murder. This Court affirmed his convictions and death sentences in November 1997. Hutchison subsequently sought post-conviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing on some of his claims, the motion court denied his motion.

Hutchison makes ten points on appeal. He argues the prosecutor improperly allowed the jury to believe Lopez's false testimony that he had no deal when the state in fact had reduced Lopez's charges and sentence. Hutchison argues this was prejudicial because Lopez was the only trial witness who was present during the murders. He contends he was given the death sentence, rather than being able to make a deal with the prosecutor as Lopez did, because he was unable to pay the victims' family as Lopez did. He also contends the state public defender failed to provide his trial attorneys with litigation expenses necessary for them to investigate witnesses and records in the state of California, where Hutchison and his co-defendants spent most of their lives.

In addition, Hutchison argues that his trial attorneys were ineffective. He claims they failed to investigate his background properly, failed to present expert testimony about Hutchison's limited intellectual functioning and the effects his history might have had on his culpability, and failed to investigate and present potential witnesses who could have testified that Lopez dominated and controlled Hutchison. He argues his trial attorneys failed to properly object during his trial and to preserve various claims of error that might have resulted in his case being reversed and remanded for a new trial. He also argues they should have objected to the penalty phase instructions as being too difficult for the jury to understand fully. Hutchison contends his attorneys should have raised the trial court's error in overruling his motion for a continuance, which they needed to prepare properly for the penalty phase of the trial. Hutchison also contends the motion court clearly erred in rejecting his claim that the Supreme Court's proportionality review violated his due process rights.

The state responds that many of Hutchison's arguments are improper in a post-conviction relief proceeding and should have been raised during the direct appeal. For example, the state contends that Hutchison's arguments that the prosecutor allegedly failed to reveal the plea agreement with Lopez and allegedly agreed not to pursue the death penalty against Lopez because Lopez was able to pay restitution to the victims' family are improper in a post-conviction relief proceeding. The state also responds that much of what Hutchison deems to be ineffective assistance by his trial attorneys actually reflects a reasonable trial strategy, and that much of the evidence Hutchison believes should have been introduced actually may have damaged his theory of the case at trial.

The state further responds that Hutchison's attorneys were not ineffective in failing to call additional experts because the defense expert who testified presented a complete evaluation of Hutchison, his history and his limited intellectual functioning. The state contends that the Supreme Court repeatedly has denied claims that its proportionality review is unconstitutional. The state also responds that the Supreme Court has discounted the study that Hutchison claims shows that juries do not understand penalty phase instructions.