The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments. Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.
DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
9 a.m. Thursday, March 15, 2018
SC96639
Gordon F. Goldsby v. George Lombardi
Cole County
Gordon F. Goldsby v. George Lombardi
Cole County
Challenge to dismissal of petition seeking recalculation of prison sentence
Listen to the oral argument: SC96639 MP3 file
Goldsby was represented during arguments by Jeffrey T. McPherson of Armstrong Teasdale LLP in St. Louis; the director of corrections was represented by Gregory M. Goodwin of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Gordon Goldsby was tried and convicted in 1990 of kidnapping, rape and assault with intent to do great bodily harm with malice for crimes committed in March 1972. The circuit court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of 10 years, life and 25 years, respectively. In July 2015, Goldsby filed a pro se lawsuit against the director of the state’s department of corrections seeking a declaratory judgment as to his right to have his prison sentence recalculated. Specifically, he alleged the department was refusing to calculate the potential completion date and potential release date from his life sentence based on the law in existence in 1972 when he committed his offenses. The circuit court dismissed his petition and subsequently overruled Goldsby’s motion to modify the judgment. Goldsby appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. Preliminary questions involve whether Goldsby’s appeal was timely or, alternatively, whether this Court otherwise has jurisdiction to consider his appeal. A related issue involves the extent Goldsby was required to comply or did comply with rules requiring a notice of appeal to be accompanied by a filing fee. An additional question involves whether the circuit court properly dismissed Goldsby’s declaratory judgment action and the extent to which his claim may have been barred by prior litigation.
SC96639_Goldsby_brief
SC96639_Director_of_Corrections_brief
SC96639_Goldsby_reply_brief
SC96770
State of Missouri v. Maverick Holmsley
St. Louis County
Challenges to closing argument comments, juror misconduct in sodomy case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96770 MP3 file
Holmsley was represented during arguments by N. Scott Rosenblum of Rosenblum Schwartz & Fry PC in St. Louis; the state was represented by Christine K. Lesicko of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
The state charged Maverick Holmsley with two counts each of first-degree sodomy and first degree attempted sodomy for incidents at an August 2014 residential sports camp at his St. Louis County high school. The state alleged Holmsley aided or encouraged others in engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with his high school football teammates through the use of forcible compulsion. During trial, the circuit court excluded from evidence apology letters Holmsley had sent to two boys. The circuit court overruled Holmsley’s objection when the prosecutor, during closing arguments, told the jury the defense did not want the jury to see the apology letters. Later in closing arguments, the circuit court sustained Holmsley’s objection to the prosecutor’s discussion of a criminal state of mind not included in the jury instructions, but it refused to instruct the jury to disregard the discussion. The jury found Holmsley guilty, and the circuit court sentenced Holmsley to concurrent terms totaling five years in prison. He sought a new trial based on juror misconduct. The circuit court found one juror committed misconduct when she attempted to flee the deliberative process and had improper communication with a court bailiff in so doing, creating a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found the state sustained its burden of showing the juror was not subject to improper influences and overruled Holmsley’s motion for a new trial. Holmsley appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court should have granted a new trial based on prejudice due to juror misconduct. Another question is whether the prosecutor’s comment about the apology letters misled the jury, violated Holmsley’s constitutional rights or otherwise prejudiced his defense. An additional question is whether the circuit court should have instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s closing argument discussion regarding the criminal state of mind to which Holmsley objected.
SC96770_Holmsley_amended_brief
SC96770_State_brief
SC96770_Holmsley_reply_brief
SC96699
In re: Jonathan D. McDowell
Cole County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC96699 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel was represented during arguments by Nancy L. Ripperger of the chief disciplinary counsel’s office in Jefferson City; McDowell, of Jefferson City, represented himself.
The chief disciplinary counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings in November 2016 against Jefferson City attorney Jonathan McDowell for alleged violations of the rules of professional responsibility arising from McDowell’s representation of a pilot in an employment discrimination case against the pilot’s union and former airline. The pilot hired McDowell to represent him in 2012, while McDowell was practicing law in Kansas City. According to the disciplinary information against him, McDowell filed the lawsuit in federal court, although he had not yet applied for admission to practice law there. McDowell later joined a Springfield law firm while he still was representing the pilot. In March 2015, the federal court dismissed the pilot’s state discrimination claim against the airline, finding it was not filed on time. Two months later, the federal court also dismissed the pilot’s state discrimination claim against the union. A week later, McDowell resigned from the law firm without notice and without giving the firm the status of the litigation, providing impending discovery deadlines or advising he had been ordered to pay – but had not paid – attorney fees for a prior discovery dispute. The attorney who ultimately handled the case on the pilot’s behalf was unable to overcome a motion for summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial), although she believed the outcome would have been different had the pilot’s claims been filed on time and in state, rather than federal, court. Following an April 2017 evidentiary hearing, the regional disciplinary hearing panel issued its decision finding McDowell had violated rules of professional conduct regarding competent representation, diligence, communication, protecting a client’s rights upon termination of representation and making a false statement to a tribunal. The panel recommended McDowell’s law license be suspended, with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least six months. Both McDowell and the chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s decision. The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to suspend McDowell’s law license with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least two years. McDowell disputes the panel’s findings and urges the Court not to suspend his license.
This case presents two primary questions for this Court – whether McDowell violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
SC96699_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC96699_McDowell_brief
Listen to the oral argument: SC96639 MP3 file
Goldsby was represented during arguments by Jeffrey T. McPherson of Armstrong Teasdale LLP in St. Louis; the director of corrections was represented by Gregory M. Goodwin of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Gordon Goldsby was tried and convicted in 1990 of kidnapping, rape and assault with intent to do great bodily harm with malice for crimes committed in March 1972. The circuit court sentenced him to consecutive prison terms of 10 years, life and 25 years, respectively. In July 2015, Goldsby filed a pro se lawsuit against the director of the state’s department of corrections seeking a declaratory judgment as to his right to have his prison sentence recalculated. Specifically, he alleged the department was refusing to calculate the potential completion date and potential release date from his life sentence based on the law in existence in 1972 when he committed his offenses. The circuit court dismissed his petition and subsequently overruled Goldsby’s motion to modify the judgment. Goldsby appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. Preliminary questions involve whether Goldsby’s appeal was timely or, alternatively, whether this Court otherwise has jurisdiction to consider his appeal. A related issue involves the extent Goldsby was required to comply or did comply with rules requiring a notice of appeal to be accompanied by a filing fee. An additional question involves whether the circuit court properly dismissed Goldsby’s declaratory judgment action and the extent to which his claim may have been barred by prior litigation.
SC96639_Goldsby_brief
SC96639_Director_of_Corrections_brief
SC96639_Goldsby_reply_brief
SC96770
State of Missouri v. Maverick Holmsley
St. Louis County
Challenges to closing argument comments, juror misconduct in sodomy case
Listen to the oral argument: SC96770 MP3 file
Holmsley was represented during arguments by N. Scott Rosenblum of Rosenblum Schwartz & Fry PC in St. Louis; the state was represented by Christine K. Lesicko of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
The state charged Maverick Holmsley with two counts each of first-degree sodomy and first degree attempted sodomy for incidents at an August 2014 residential sports camp at his St. Louis County high school. The state alleged Holmsley aided or encouraged others in engaging in deviate sexual intercourse with his high school football teammates through the use of forcible compulsion. During trial, the circuit court excluded from evidence apology letters Holmsley had sent to two boys. The circuit court overruled Holmsley’s objection when the prosecutor, during closing arguments, told the jury the defense did not want the jury to see the apology letters. Later in closing arguments, the circuit court sustained Holmsley’s objection to the prosecutor’s discussion of a criminal state of mind not included in the jury instructions, but it refused to instruct the jury to disregard the discussion. The jury found Holmsley guilty, and the circuit court sentenced Holmsley to concurrent terms totaling five years in prison. He sought a new trial based on juror misconduct. The circuit court found one juror committed misconduct when she attempted to flee the deliberative process and had improper communication with a court bailiff in so doing, creating a rebuttable presumption of prejudice. Following an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court found the state sustained its burden of showing the juror was not subject to improper influences and overruled Holmsley’s motion for a new trial. Holmsley appeals.
This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One involves whether the circuit court should have granted a new trial based on prejudice due to juror misconduct. Another question is whether the prosecutor’s comment about the apology letters misled the jury, violated Holmsley’s constitutional rights or otherwise prejudiced his defense. An additional question is whether the circuit court should have instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s closing argument discussion regarding the criminal state of mind to which Holmsley objected.
SC96770_Holmsley_amended_brief
SC96770_State_brief
SC96770_Holmsley_reply_brief
SC96699
In re: Jonathan D. McDowell
Cole County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC96699 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel was represented during arguments by Nancy L. Ripperger of the chief disciplinary counsel’s office in Jefferson City; McDowell, of Jefferson City, represented himself.
The chief disciplinary counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings in November 2016 against Jefferson City attorney Jonathan McDowell for alleged violations of the rules of professional responsibility arising from McDowell’s representation of a pilot in an employment discrimination case against the pilot’s union and former airline. The pilot hired McDowell to represent him in 2012, while McDowell was practicing law in Kansas City. According to the disciplinary information against him, McDowell filed the lawsuit in federal court, although he had not yet applied for admission to practice law there. McDowell later joined a Springfield law firm while he still was representing the pilot. In March 2015, the federal court dismissed the pilot’s state discrimination claim against the airline, finding it was not filed on time. Two months later, the federal court also dismissed the pilot’s state discrimination claim against the union. A week later, McDowell resigned from the law firm without notice and without giving the firm the status of the litigation, providing impending discovery deadlines or advising he had been ordered to pay – but had not paid – attorney fees for a prior discovery dispute. The attorney who ultimately handled the case on the pilot’s behalf was unable to overcome a motion for summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial), although she believed the outcome would have been different had the pilot’s claims been filed on time and in state, rather than federal, court. Following an April 2017 evidentiary hearing, the regional disciplinary hearing panel issued its decision finding McDowell had violated rules of professional conduct regarding competent representation, diligence, communication, protecting a client’s rights upon termination of representation and making a false statement to a tribunal. The panel recommended McDowell’s law license be suspended, with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least six months. Both McDowell and the chief disciplinary counsel rejected the panel’s decision. The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to suspend McDowell’s law license with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least two years. McDowell disputes the panel’s findings and urges the Court not to suspend his license.
This case presents two primary questions for this Court – whether McDowell violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
SC96699_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC96699_McDowell_brief