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
9:30 a.m. Tuesday, November 5, 2019
SC97881
Heather Hamilton v. State of Missouri
Lincoln County
Challenge to denial of postconviction relief sought based on Bazell
Listen to the oral argument: SC97881 MP3 file
Hamilton was represented during arguments by James Egan of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Shaun Mackelprang of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
The state charged Heather Hamilton with two felony counts of stealing. In 2012, she pleaded guilty as charged, and the circuit court ordered her to complete a drug court program. The circuit court ultimately suspended imposition of sentence and placed her on five years’ probation. In 2017, the circuit court revoked Hamilton’s probation and sentenced her to a total of five years in prison. Hamilton sought postconviction relief, arguing the felonies for which she was sentenced actually were only misdemeanors under this Court’s 2016 decision in State v. Bazell; therefore, she should have been sentenced for the misdemeanors, not the enhanced felonies. The circuit court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding, under this Court’s 2017 decision in State ex rel. Windeknecht v. Mesmer, Bazell applies only prospectively, except those cases pending on direct appeal, which Hamilton’s case was not. Hamilton appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether Bazell retroactively prohibits the circuit court from sentencing Hamilton for the enhanced felonies or is limited to only prospective application and those cases pending on direct appeal. A related issue involves the impact, if any, of Hamilton’s guilty plea on the Bazell analysis.
SC97881_Hamilton_brief
SC97881_Hamilton_reply_brief
SC97916
State of Missouri v. Jason Russell
Lincoln County
Challenge under Bazell to sentence for felony stealing
Listen to the oral argument: SC97916 MP3 file
Russell was represented during arguments by Craig Johnston of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Gregory Barnes of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
The state charged Jason Russell with felony stealing. In 2013, he pleaded guilty as charged, and the circuit court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on four years’ probation. In 2017, Russell admitted he violated his probation but filed a written objection that, under this Court’s 2016 decision in State v. Bazell, he had to be sentenced for a misdemeanor and not the enhanced felony. The circuit court overruled his objection and sentenced him to seven years in prison. Russell appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether Bazell retroactively prohibits the circuit court from sentencing Russell for the enhanced felony or is limited to only prospective application and those cases pending on direct appeal. A related issue involves whether Russell’s guilty plea constituted a waiver of his right to challenge his felony sentencing.
SC97916_Russell_brief
SC97916
State of Missouri v. Jason Russell
Lincoln County
Challenge under Bazell to sentence for felony stealing
Listen to the oral argument: SC97916 MP3 file
Russell was represented during arguments by Craig Johnston of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Gregory Barnes of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
The state charged Jason Russell with felony stealing. In 2013, he pleaded guilty as charged, and the circuit court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on four years’ probation. In 2017, Russell admitted he violated his probation but filed a written objection that, under this Court’s 2016 decision in State v. Bazell, he had to be sentenced for a misdemeanor and not the enhanced felony. The circuit court overruled his objection and sentenced him to seven years in prison. Russell appeals.
This appeal presents one question for this Court – whether Bazell retroactively prohibits the circuit court from sentencing Russell for the enhanced felony or is limited to only prospective application and those cases pending on direct appeal. A related issue involves whether Russell’s guilty plea constituted a waiver of his right to challenge his felony sentencing.
SC97916_Russell_brief
SC97916_Russell_reply_brief
SC97712
J.L. Wilson v. City of Kansas City, Missouri
Jackson County
Challenge to judgment, award of litigation expenses in disability discrimination case
Listen to the oral argument: SC97712 MP3 file
Kansas City was represented during arguments by Timothy Ertz of the city attorney’s office in Kansas City; Wilson was represented by Alexander Edelman of Edelman, Liesen & Myers LLP in Kansas City.
Kansas City employed J.L. Wilson as an equipment operator for the city’s solid waste division. He injured his elbow while driving a recycling truck, and after the swelling increased, he sought medical treatment. He had surgery, physical therapy and transitional duty assignments before returning to his equipment operator position. Soon after, he complained again of pain in his elbow and returned to his doctor for further treatment. The doctor concluded Wilson had reached maximum medical improvement, assigned him a workers’ compensation-type permanent partial disability rating of 15 percent in his elbow and discharged Wilson with a permanent restriction of “no trash truck driving.” Wilson sought to return to work with accommodation for the restriction and rejected the alternative employment a supervisor offered. He subsequently applied for a reasonable accommodation pursuant to a city regulation. The city denied his request and encouraged him to apply for other vacant positions. Wilson appealed to the city manager’s office, which denied the appeal. The supervisor again suggested Wilson consider alternative city employment. When Wilson did not, the supervisor ultimately requested Wilson’s termination because the city was having to pay other workers overtime to cover Wilson’s work. Wilson subsequently sued the city under the state’s human rights act. The case proceeded to a jury trial on a single claim of disability discrimination. In presenting certain evidence and in closing argument, Wilson made a number of references to the disability rating his doctor had assigned to his elbow. The jury returned its verdict in Wilson’s favor, awarding him actual and punitive damages. The circuit court entered an amended judgment awarding Wilson actual and punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation expenses. The city appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for this Court. One involves whether a workers’ compensation disability rating is relevant to a disability claim under the human rights act and whether the circuit court should have allowed the jury to hear evidence and argument relating to Wilson’s permanent partial disability rating. The other question involves whether the human rights act permits a circuit court to award litigation expenses to a prevailing party.
SC97712_Kansas_City_brief
SC97712_Wilson_brief
SC97712_Kansas_City_reply_brief
SC97744
State ex rel. Michael Kelly v. Julie Inman
St. Francois County
Challenge to department of mental health commitment
Listen to the oral argument: SC97744 MP3 file
Kelly was represented during arguments by Gwenda Robinson of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the department of mental health was represented by Patrick Logan of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
After charging Michael Kelly with first-degree robbery and armed criminal action, the state sought a mental evaluation of Kelly to determine his competency to proceed to trial and to determine whether he had a mental disease or defect excluding criminal responsibility. The circuit court granted the motion. A state forensic examiner diagnosed Kelly with a mental disease, concluded he was not competent to proceed and did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of his act, and recommended he be held in a hospital for treatment. The circuit court found Kelly incompetent to proceed and suffering from a mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. It also found he was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and committed him to the custody of the state department of mental health. Kelly seeks this Court’s writ of habeas corpus to release him from confinement in the department.
This case presents one question for this Court – whether the circuit court exceeded its authority and violated due process in finding Kelly not guilty by reason of insanity and committing him to the department’s custody while he was mentally incompetent. A related issue involves whether Kelly procedurally defaulted on his claim by failing to raise it earlier.
SC97744_Kelly_brief
SC97744_Department_brief
SC97744_Kelly_reply_brief
SC97712
J.L. Wilson v. City of Kansas City, Missouri
Jackson County
Challenge to judgment, award of litigation expenses in disability discrimination case
Listen to the oral argument: SC97712 MP3 file
Kansas City was represented during arguments by Timothy Ertz of the city attorney’s office in Kansas City; Wilson was represented by Alexander Edelman of Edelman, Liesen & Myers LLP in Kansas City.
Kansas City employed J.L. Wilson as an equipment operator for the city’s solid waste division. He injured his elbow while driving a recycling truck, and after the swelling increased, he sought medical treatment. He had surgery, physical therapy and transitional duty assignments before returning to his equipment operator position. Soon after, he complained again of pain in his elbow and returned to his doctor for further treatment. The doctor concluded Wilson had reached maximum medical improvement, assigned him a workers’ compensation-type permanent partial disability rating of 15 percent in his elbow and discharged Wilson with a permanent restriction of “no trash truck driving.” Wilson sought to return to work with accommodation for the restriction and rejected the alternative employment a supervisor offered. He subsequently applied for a reasonable accommodation pursuant to a city regulation. The city denied his request and encouraged him to apply for other vacant positions. Wilson appealed to the city manager’s office, which denied the appeal. The supervisor again suggested Wilson consider alternative city employment. When Wilson did not, the supervisor ultimately requested Wilson’s termination because the city was having to pay other workers overtime to cover Wilson’s work. Wilson subsequently sued the city under the state’s human rights act. The case proceeded to a jury trial on a single claim of disability discrimination. In presenting certain evidence and in closing argument, Wilson made a number of references to the disability rating his doctor had assigned to his elbow. The jury returned its verdict in Wilson’s favor, awarding him actual and punitive damages. The circuit court entered an amended judgment awarding Wilson actual and punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation expenses. The city appeals.
This appeal presents two questions for this Court. One involves whether a workers’ compensation disability rating is relevant to a disability claim under the human rights act and whether the circuit court should have allowed the jury to hear evidence and argument relating to Wilson’s permanent partial disability rating. The other question involves whether the human rights act permits a circuit court to award litigation expenses to a prevailing party.
SC97712_Kansas_City_brief
SC97712_Wilson_brief
SC97712_Kansas_City_reply_brief
SC97744
State ex rel. Michael Kelly v. Julie Inman
St. Francois County
Challenge to department of mental health commitment
Listen to the oral argument: SC97744 MP3 file
Kelly was represented during arguments by Gwenda Robinson of the public defender’s office in St. Louis; the department of mental health was represented by Patrick Logan of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
After charging Michael Kelly with first-degree robbery and armed criminal action, the state sought a mental evaluation of Kelly to determine his competency to proceed to trial and to determine whether he had a mental disease or defect excluding criminal responsibility. The circuit court granted the motion. A state forensic examiner diagnosed Kelly with a mental disease, concluded he was not competent to proceed and did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of his act, and recommended he be held in a hospital for treatment. The circuit court found Kelly incompetent to proceed and suffering from a mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. It also found he was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and committed him to the custody of the state department of mental health. Kelly seeks this Court’s writ of habeas corpus to release him from confinement in the department.
This case presents one question for this Court – whether the circuit court exceeded its authority and violated due process in finding Kelly not guilty by reason of insanity and committing him to the department’s custody while he was mentally incompetent. A related issue involves whether Kelly procedurally defaulted on his claim by failing to raise it earlier.
SC97744_Kelly_brief
SC97744_Department_brief
SC97744_Kelly_reply_brief
SC97912
In re: John Dale Wiley
Stone County
Attorney discipline
Note: This case has been removed from the argument docket. By order dated November 4, 2019, it instead will be submitted on the briefs.
This is an attorney discipline case involving Dale Wiley’s representation of a tenant, a debtor, a defendant and homeowners. The tenant retained Wiley to represent him in an unlawful detainer action. Wiley requested a jury trial but did not appear at a scheduled hearing, filed an untimely response to a motion for summary judgment (judgment on the court filings, without a trial), and sent another attorney to the summary judgment hearing, which resulted in an unfavorable judgment against the tenant. The debtor hired Wiley to represent her in a collection action filed against her. His failure to comply with discovery requests resulted in the circuit court entering a default judgment against the debtor. The defendant hired Wiley to defend him against child pornography charges. Without executing an engagement letter, Wiley had the defendant give him a $40,000 check. Wiley deposited most of the money into his operating account rather than his trust account, and within 20 days, it was spent on Wiley’s child support arrearage, Wiley’s other debts and another client’s bond. Wiley represented the homeowners in a foreclosure matter. He encouraged them not to attend the foreclosure sale, and the circuit court entered summary judgment against them. On appeal, Wiley failed to file a brief despite the homeowners filing an appeals bond and paying him fees. Following an evidentiary hearing, the disciplinary hearing panel found Wiley’s explanations were not credible and concluded he violated Rules 4-1.1 (competence), 4-1.3 (diligence), Rule 4-1.5 (safekeeping of property) and Rule 4-8.4(c) (misconduct). The panel recommended Wiley’s law license be suspended indefinitely with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least one year. The chief disciplinary counsel accepted the panel’s recommendation; Wiley did not. The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to follow the recommendation; Wiley contends probation is appropriate.
This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Wiley violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.
This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Wiley violated the rules of professional conduct and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.