In re D.J.M

6 Citing cases

  1. In re N.R.W.

    482 S.W.3d 473 (E.D. Mo. 2016)

    The right to counsel is a fundamental right necessary to ensure fairness in juvenile delinquency proceedings. In re D.J.M., 259 S.W.3d 533, 535 (Mo.banc 2008). Because of the importance of the right to counsel, there must be strict and literal compliance with the statutes affecting this right, and a failure to strictly comply is reversible error.

  2. Juvenile Officer v. J.L.H. (In re Interest of J.L.H.)

    488 S.W.3d 689 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    When Gault was decided, however, the Missouri General Assembly had already adopted section 211.211 similarly affording juveniles the right to counsel. After Gault, when our supreme court considered a juvenile's right to counsel in In re D.J.M., 259 S.W.3d 533 (Mo. banc 2008), the court did not rely on Gault to find reversible error, but instead relied solely on the trial court's failure to strictly and literally comply with section 211.211. Id. at 536. Our supreme court observed that it did not need to address D.J.M.'s constitutional right to counsel, “because D.J.M. was not provided his statutory right to counsel pursuant to section 211.211.”

  3. In re N.R.W.

    482 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 3 times
    Finding appeal was not moot when juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for an offense that would have been considered a felony if committed by an adult

    The right to counsel is a fundamental right necessary to ensure fairness in juvenile delinquency proceedings. In re D.J.M., 259 S.W.3d 533, 535 (Mo.banc 2008). Because of the importance of the right to counsel, there must be strict and literal compliance with the statutes affecting this right, and a failure to strictly comply is reversible error.

  4. In re M.M

    320 S.W.3d 191 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 3 times

    Because of the importance of the right to counsel and to the fairness of the proceedings, there must be a strict and literal compliance with the statutes affecting this right and failure to strictly comply results in reversible error. In the Interest of D.J.M., 259 S.W.3d 533, 535 (Mo. banc 2008); D.L., 999 S.W.2d at 293-4. The constitutional requirements for waiver of counsel by juveniles in proceedings should be no less than those required for waiver of counsel by adults in criminal actions. D.L., 999 S.W.2d at 294.

  5. State v. Pratte

    298 S.W.3d 870 (Mo. 2009)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that public defender may not elect not to represent otherwise eligible defendants in "new probation revocation cases in which a suspended execution of sentence previously had been imposed"

    The right to counsel has been described "as one of the most pervasive rights [of a criminal defendant] 'as it affects the defendant's ability to assert any other rights he may have.'" In re D.J.M., 259 S.W.3d 533, 535 (Mo. banc 2008) (quoting State v. Dixon, 916 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Mo.App. 1995)). "Indeed, [t]he assistance of counsel is often a requisite to the very existence of a fair trial."

  6. In re C.F

    340 S.W.3d 296 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 15 times
    Finding that the trial court commits reversible error when it fails to comply with section 211.211 even where a parent is given an opportunity to cross-examine and otherwise participate in the hearings

    "Because of the importance of the right to counsel to the fairness of the proceedings, there must be strict and literal compliance with the statutes affecting this right, and failure to strictly comply results in reversible error." In re D.J.M., 259 S.W.3d 533, 535 (Mo. banc 2008); see also In re M.M., 320 S.W.3d 191, 196-97 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010). Rule 116.01(d), which mirrors the language of Section 211.211.4, provides: