SC96032
Jakib Propst v. State of Missouri
St. Francois County 
Challenge regarding untimely motion for postconviction relief
Listen to the oral argument: SC96032 MP3 file
Propst was represented during arguments by District Defender Gwenda R. Robinson 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.

In January 2014, Jakib Propst pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary. The circuit court sentenced him to five years in prison, suspended execution of the sentence and placed Propst on supervised probation for five years. Three months later, the circuit court revoked probation due to violations and executed Propst’s sentence. In October 2014 – 181 days after he was delivered to the department of corrections – Propst filed an untimely pro se motion for postconviction relief. He alleged he was eligible for a court-ordered detention sanction and, therefore, should have been placed in a 120-day program. He further alleged he just that month – when a public defender visited him in prison – had learned he had a claim regarding his sentencing but did not know why the public defender was a day late in filing Propst’s motion. After a hearing regarding timeliness, the circuit court dismissed the motion. Propst appeals

This appeal presents one question for the Court – whether the circuit court should have permitted Propst’s motion to proceed despite its untimeliness. Related issues include whether the failure to file the motion before the deadline was beyond Propst’s control and whether counsel actively interfered by assuming the duty of filing the pro se postconviction relief motion but then failing to do so in a timely manner.

SC96032_Propst_brief
SC96032_State_brief SC96032_Propst_reply_brief
 
 
SC96024
Jack Alpert v. State of Missouri, et al.
Johnson County
Constitutional challenge to statute prohibiting felons from keeping or bearing arms
Listen to the oral argument: SC96024 MP3 file
Alpert was represented during arguments by Ronald S. Ribaudo of The Ribaudo Law Firm in Ballwin; the state was represented by Gregory M. Goodwin of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

In 1970, Jack Alpert pleaded guilty to a state drug possession charge and was sentenced to three years in prison. Six years later, he pleaded guilty to a federal drug possession charge and was sentenced to two years in prison. In 1983, he applied to lift his federal prohibition against possessing firearms. Following an investigation, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms granted his application. In 1986, Alpert was granted a federal license to buy and sell firearms. He began doing so and, in 2007, founded Missouri Bullet Company. The next year, the legislature amended section 571.070, RSMo, to prohibit felons from possessing or owning firearms, after which Alpert lost his firearms dealer’s license. In June 2015, Alpert filed a declaratory judgment action claiming section 571.070 violates his state and federal constitutional rights. In October 2016, the circuit court granted the state’s motion for summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial). Alpert appeals.

This appeal presents several questions for the Court. One is whether Alpert properly raised his constitutional challenge to the statute – including whether his claims are ripe (ready for judicial determination), supported by sufficient facts and concern an immediate, concrete dispute as well as whether Alpert has any other adequate legal remedy available to him. If Alpert properly raised his claims, another question is whether the circuit court properly granted the state summary judgment or whether the statute violates the state or federal constitution, either on its face or as applied to Alpert.

SC96024_Alpert_brief
SC96024_State_brief
SC96024_Alpert_reply_brief


SC96195
Sherry Spence v. BNSF Railway Company
Stoddard County
Allegations of juror nondisclosure and instructional error in a wrongful death case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96195 MP3 file
The railway company was represented during arguments by Booker T. Shaw of Thompson Coburn LLP in St. Louis; Spence was represented by Michael W. Manners of Lamgdon & Emison in Lexington.

Sherry Spence’s husband was killed when the pickup truck he was driving collided with a BNSF Railway Company train at a railroad crossing. Spence subsequently filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Stoddard County. During jury selection, the railway company asked prospective jurors to disclose whether they or any immediate family members had been party to any lawsuit for damages. Following an April 2015 jury trial, the circuit court entered its judgment assessing $19 million in damages plus statutory interest and court costs against the railway company. The railway company filed a motion for a new trial, alleging intentional nondisclosure by a juror who did not disclose she had filed a wrongful death lawsuit after her son was killed in a motor vehicle accident, as well as evidentiary and instructional errors. The circuit court overruled the motion. The railway company appeals.

This appeal presents several questions for the Court. One is whether the juror intentionally failed to disclose her son’s death and her subsequent wrongful death lawsuit or whether the railway company should have investigated potential jurors’ case histories more thoroughly or asked clearer questions during jury selection. Other questions involve whether the circuit court should have allowed the testimony of a railway representative to whom the juror allegedly discussed her son’s death after the jury rendered its verdict and whether the circuit court should have granted a new trial on the basis of the alleged intentional nondisclosure. Additional questions involve whether the circuit court committed instructional error in giving either the verdict-directing instructions or a non-approved instruction. A further question is whether the circuit court should have allowed Spence to introduce evidence regarding claimed modifications of the railway’s traffic engineering instructions or whether Spence had withdrawn this allegation before trial.

Two organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court. The Association of American Railroads focused on the history of grade-crossing accidents, resulting laws and regulations regarding such crossings, the role of public education in preventing crossing accidents, and why trains are given the right-of-way at such crossings. It also argues the jury instructions confused or misdirected the jury. The United States chamber of commerce argues intentional juror nondisclosure deprives parties of the right to a fair trial and court rules requiring parties to investigate potential jurors should not extend to unreasonable investigations.
 
SC96195_BNSF_brief
SC96195_Spence_brief
SC96195_BNSF_reply_brief
 
SC96195_Association_of_American_Railroads_amicus_brief
SC96195_U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce_amicus_brief


SC96515
Todd Bearden v. State of Missouri
St. Francois County

Challenge to denial of postconviction relief following group guilty plea
Listen to the oral argument: SC96515 MP3 file
Bearden was represented during arguments by Amy E. Lowe 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.

The state charged Todd Bearden with two counts of possession of precursor chemicals – lithium and ephedrine – to manufacture methamphetamine. As part of a group plea procedure with six other individuals, Bearden pleaded guilty. Bearden told the court he had no questions and his plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The circuit court accepted his plea and sentenced him to consecutive sentences of seven years in prison, suspended execution of the sentences and placed him on probation for five years. The circuit court subsequently revoked his probation due to violations and sent him to prison. Bearden then sought postconviction relief, which the circuit court denied without an evidentiary hearing. Bearden appeals.

This appeal presents multiple questions for the Court. One involves whether the group process in which Bearden entered his guilty plea lacked necessary individual questioning or resulted in a plea that was not voluntary or otherwise was unconstitutional. Other questions involve whether there was a sufficient factual basis for Bearden’s plea. Additional questions include whether lithium falls within the statute governing methamphetamine and whether Bearden’s attorney advised him not all types of methamphetamine are considered controlled substances.

SC96515_Bearden_brief
SC96515_State_brief

SC96515_Bearden_reply_brief