State of Missouri v. J.M., Respondent/Defendant.

Missouri Court of Appeals

State of Missouri v. J.M., Respondent/Defendant.

DecidedJuly 19, 2022

DocketED109540

StatusPublished

This text of State of Missouri v. J.M., Respondent/Defendant. (State of Missouri v. J.M., Respondent/Defendant.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Missouri v. J.M., Respondent/Defendant., (Mo. Ct. App. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals €astern District

DIVISION TWO

STATE OF MISSOURI, No. ED109540

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis

Cause No. 2022-CR01019-01

Appellant, VS.

J.M., Honorable Elizabeth B. Hogan

Respondent/Defendant.

Filed: July 19, 2022 OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an indictment filed in a court of general jurisdiction against Respondent/Defendant J.M. Defendant was age 17 at the time of the alleged offense and the circuit court concluded the juvenile division had authority because of a recent amendment to § 211.021, RS Mo., raising the age from 17 to 18 as the threshold for adult criminal liability. The state appealed, arguing the statutory amendment was not in effect at the time of Defendant’s offense. On June 17, 2021, this appeal was stayed to permit the Supreme Court of Missouri to rule on identical legal issues raised in other pending cases. On October 26, 2021, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued decisions in State ex rel. LJ. v. Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d 353 (Mo. banc 2021), and State v. R.J.G., 632 S.W.3d 359 (Mo. bane 2021). These decisions

require reversal of the judgment dismissing the indictment. The case is submitted after providing

the parties an opportunity to brief the issue. Although Defendant first asked the trial court to

dismiss the indictment, he now concedes that the dismissal judgment must be reversed. Deferring to the recent, controlling case law, the judgment of dismissal is reversed and

this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with the decisions

in State ex rel. T.J., 632 S.W.3d 353, and R.J.G., 632 S.W.3d 359!

Thomas C. Clark II, Judge

Robert M. Clayton III, P. J., and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., concur.

! Defendant moved to dismiss this appeal. That motion was taken with the case and is now denied, R.G., 632 §.W.3d at 362-64,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In the Missouri Court of Appeals €astern District

DIVISION TWO

STATE OF MISSOURI, No. ED109540

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis

Cause No. 2022-CR01019-01

Appellant, VS.

J.M., Honorable Elizabeth B. Hogan

Respondent/Defendant.

Filed: July 19, 2022 OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an indictment filed in a court of general jurisdiction against Respondent/Defendant J.M. Defendant was age 17 at the time of the alleged offense and the circuit court concluded the juvenile division had authority because of a recent amendment to § 211.021, RS Mo., raising the age from 17 to 18 as the threshold for adult criminal liability. The state appealed, arguing the statutory amendment was not in effect at the time of Defendant’s offense. On June 17, 2021, this appeal was stayed to permit the Supreme Court of Missouri to rule on identical legal issues raised in other pending cases. On October 26, 2021, the Supreme Court of Missouri issued decisions in State ex rel. LJ. v. Cundiff, 632 S.W.3d 353 (Mo. banc 2021), and State v. R.J.G., 632 S.W.3d 359 (Mo. bane 2021). These decisions

require reversal of the judgment dismissing the indictment. The case is submitted after providing

the parties an opportunity to brief the issue. Although Defendant first asked the trial court to

dismiss the indictment, he now concedes that the dismissal judgment must be reversed. Deferring to the recent, controlling case law, the judgment of dismissal is reversed and

this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with the decisions

in State ex rel. T.J., 632 S.W.3d 353, and R.J.G., 632 S.W.3d 359!

Thomas C. Clark II, Judge

Robert M. Clayton III, P. J., and Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., concur.

! Defendant moved to dismiss this appeal. That motion was taken with the case and is now denied, R.G., 632 §.W.3d at 362-64,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Missouri v. J.M., Respondent/Defendant., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-missouri-v-jm-respondentdefendant-moctapp-2022.