Adam Woodworth vs. State of Missouri

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 30, 2025
• Docket: WD87404
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District

ADAM WOODWORTH, ) ) Appellant, ) WD87404 ) V. ) OPINION FILED: ) SEPTEMBER 30, 2025 STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent. )

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston County, Missouri The Honorable William P. Devoy, Judge

Before Division One: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Karen King Mitchell, Judge

On September 11, 2017, Adam Woodworth was convicted by the Circuit Court of

Livingston County of three counts of first-degree sodomy, three counts of first-degree

child molestation, and two counts of sexual misconduct involving a child. He was

sentenced to a total of twenty years in the Department of Corrections. This Court

affirmed the judgment and sentence of the trial court on September 3, 2019.1 Woodworth

timely filed a motion for post-conviction relief under Rule 29.15. The motion court

denied Woodworth's motion following an evidentiary hearing. Woodworth appeals the

1 State v. Woodworth, 586 S.W.3d 282 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). denial of his motion. Due to the lack of a final judgment, we dismiss this appeal and

remand for further proceedings.

Factual background and procedural history

On appeal from the motion court’s denial of a Rule 29.15 motion, we view the

facts in the light most favorable to the underlying criminal conviction. Morrison v. State,

619 S.W.3d 605, 607 n.1 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021). Woodworth’s convictions arose from

sexual misconduct, sodomy, and molestation of his young daughter. When this Court

affirmed the trial court’s judgment, we set out the detailed factual underpinning of his

convictions. We will not repeat the underlying facts here.

After timely filing a pro-se motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri

Supreme Court Rule 29.15, Woodworth was appointed a public defender. Woodworth’s

appointed counsel timely filed an amended motion, asserting sixteen claims of error.2

The motion court held an evidentiary hearing and on July 8, 2023, the motion court

issued findings of fact and conclusions of law specifically addressing fifteen of the

sixteen claims of error. The motion court then concluded, “[t]herefore, this Court denied

[sic] Movant’s motion in full.”

Woodworth raises four points on appeal, alleging: 1) trial counsel was ineffective

for failing to object and exclude the Sheriff’s3 testimony as hearsay; 2) trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to challenge the State’s recalling of the victim’s mother to testify;

2 Woodworth’s post-conviction motion contained claims numbered 8(a) – 8(p). 3 Pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Operating Rule 2.02(c)(3), we do not include names of witnesses or other individuals who are not parties. 2 3) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the testimony of the expert

witness before calling her as an expert witness; and 4) the motion court erred in failing to

acknowledge, adjudicate, or dispose of Woodworth’s amended post-conviction claim that

trial counsel was ineffective in failing to move for a mistrial after undisclosed counseling

notes of a therapist witness came to light.4 The motion court, in its conclusions of law,

specifically addressed the underlying claims presented in points one through three raised

in this appeal. However, the motion court failed to address Claim 8(p) (point four) in its

judgment. Respondent argues the motion court's failure to address this claim in its

judgment means that there is no final judgment in this case, and the cause must be

remanded to the motion court to address this remaining claim. In his reply brief,

Woodworth acknowledges the judgment is not final, and the cause must be remanded to

the motion court.

Discussion

As a threshold matter, we must address whether the judgment from which

Woodworth appeals is a final judgment. Both Woodworth and the State acknowledge

that the motion court did not specifically make findings of fact or conclusions on the

claim that Woodworth now raises in his fourth point on appeal.

“In order for this Court to review an appeal, the appeal must be taken from a final

judgment.” Rogers v. State, 610 S.W.3d 733, 736 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020). “A final

judgment resolves all issues in a case, leaving nothing for future determination.” Ndegwa

4 The four points on appeal correlate to claims 8(d), 8(f), 8(i), and 8(p), respectively. 3 v. KSSO, LLC, 371 S.W.3d 798, 801 (Mo. banc 2012) (citation modified). “An appeal

must be dismissed if it is not a final judgment.” Vickers v. State, 715 S.W.3d 231, 233

(Mo. App. W.D. 2025).

In its judgment on a motion for post-conviction relief, the motion court must

“acknowledge, adjudicate, or dispose of all the claims” raised in the motion. Ward v.

State, 705 S.W.3d 727, 732 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025) (citation modified) (dismissing post-

conviction appeal because motion court failed to address some of the claims asserted in

movant’s post-conviction relief motion); see also Rogers, 610 S.W.3d at 736 (dismissing

post-conviction appeal because the motion court failed to address one of the claims for

relief asserted by the movant).

Here, the motion court failed to adjudicate movant’s claim 8(p) of the amended

motion meaning there is no final judgment. Because there is no final judgment, “we are

mandated to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.” Id.

Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed, and the cause is remanded to the motion court for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

__________________________________ Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge

All concur