State v. Wickizer

53 Citing cases

  1. State v. Williams

    502 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    To preserve a constitutional issue for appellate review, it must be raised at the earliest opportunity consistent with good pleading and orderly procedure, and must be properly preserved throughout the proceeding, or this court's analysis is limited to plain error review. State v. Wickizer , 583 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Mo. banc 1979) ; State v. Baxter , 204 S.W.3d 650, 652 (Mo. banc 2006). Plain error review under Rule 30.20 is discretionary and involves a two-step process.

  2. State v. Danforth

    654 S.W.2d 912 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 43 times
    In State v. Danforth, 654 S.W.2d 912, 925-26 (Mo.App. 1983), this court recognized and discussed the two lines of Supreme Court opinions represented by these cases.

    Transfer is not required, however, unless the defendant has properly preserved the issue for review by raising it at the earliest possible moment consistent with good pleading and orderly procedure and has further preserved it in her motion for new trial. State v. Wickizer, 583 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Mo. 1979) (en banc); State v. Hegwood, 558 S.W.2d 378, 381 (Mo.App. 1977); State v. Davis, supra. A defendant who wishes to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under which an indictment or information is drawn, must raise the issue "at the first opportunity in the course of an orderly procedure."

  3. State v. Walker

    616 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 12 times
    Noting that mugshots are considered neutral and do not indicate prior criminal activity

    But the fact is that the trial court has great discretion in ruling on the relevance and materiality of evidence. State v. Wickizer, 583 S.W.2d 519 (Mo. banc 1979); State v. Flenoid, 572 S.W.2d 179 (Mo.App. 1978). Without detailing all the objections made or rulings on them, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in this case, as their basic thrust related to the materiality or relevance of matters sought to be injected by the defendant's counsel.

  4. Niederstadt v. Nixon

    505 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2007)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Niederstadt, the state court's decision gave "no indication that the Court was invoking a procedural bar, particularly if the State did not argue that the due process issue was defaulted."

    Under Missouri law, "to preserve a constitutional issue for appellate review, it must be raised at the earliest time consistent with good pleading and orderly procedure." State v. Wickizer, 583 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Mo.banc 1979). The State argues that Niederstadt defaulted his due process claim because it was first raised in his motion for rehearing to the Supreme Court of Missouri.

  5. Niederstadt v. Nixon

    465 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2006)   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Doubting that summary determination was made on the merits

    In order to preserve a constitutional issue, Missouri law requires that it be raised at the earliest opportunity "consistent with good pleading and orderly procedure." State v. Wickizer, 583 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Mo. 1979). Although the state argued in its appeal brief in the Missouri Supreme Court that § 566.060 encompassed Mr. Niederstadt's conduct, the asserted constitutional violation on which Mr. Niederstadt's claim rests was not apparent until the Missouri Supreme Court construed the sodomy statute to include that conduct.

  6. Hill-McAfee v. Buckner

    4:20-cv-01264-SEP (E.D. Mo. Sep. 25, 2023)

    Benson, 611 S.W.2d at 540 (citing State v. Wickizer, 583 S.W.2d 519 (Mo. 1979) (en banc)).

  7. Ivory v. Cassady

    Case no. 4:14 CV 2093 RWS (E.D. Mo. Apr. 16, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    In Missouri state court proceedings, a litigant must raise constitutional claims at the earliest opportunity and preserve them throughout the proceedings. State v. Liberty, 370 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Mo. 2012) (en banc) (citing State v. Wickizer, 583 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Mo. 1979) (en banc)). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a state prisoner "must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."

  8. Ivory v. Cassady

    Case no. 4:14 CV 2093 RWS (E.D. Mo. Mar. 30, 2018)

    In Missouri state court proceedings, a litigant must raise constitutional claims at the earliest opportunity and preserve them throughout the proceedings. State v. Liberty, 370 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Mo. 2012) (en banc) (citing State v. Wickizer, 583 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Mo. 1979) (en banc)). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a state prisoner "must give the state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established appellate review process."

  9. Cooper v. Steele

    Case no. 4:13cv01610 PLC (E.D. Mo. May. 17, 2017)   Cited 4 times

    In Missouri state court proceedings, a litigant must raise constitutional claims at the earliest opportunity and preserve them throughout the proceedings. State v. Liberty, 370 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Mo. 2012) (en banc) (citing State v. Wickizer, 583 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Mo. 1979) (en banc)). Alleged trial court errors must be raised on direct appeal in Missouri.

  10. Jordan v. Bowersox

    No. 4:13-CV-2488 CAS (E.D. Mo. Mar. 30, 2017)

    In Missouri state court proceedings, a litigant must raise constitutional claims at the earliest opportunity and preserve them throughout the proceedings. State v. Liberty, 370 S.W.3d 537, 546 (Mo. 2012) (en banc) (citing State v. Wickizer, 583 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Mo. 1979) (en banc)). Alleged trial court errors must be raised on direct appeal in Missouri.