green
Positive treatment
23.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Victor D. Vickers, Jr. v. Angela Mesmer
Contrary to Petitioner’ assertion, § 558.041 “does not create an entitlement to good time credit, but [it] leaves substantial discretion to the award of such credit in the Board of Probation and Parole.” Spencer v. State, 334 S.W.3d 559, 570 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas Iseman v. Missouri Department of Corrections
“In other words, if the petition contains facts, not mere conclusions, supporting its allegations, and those facts demonstrate a justiciable controversy, then we will reverse the court's dismissal and remand the cause to the court for a determination of the parties' rights.” Spencer v. State, 334 S.W.3d 559, 562-63 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Berry v. Pfister
See, e.g., Mitchell v. Nixon, 351 S.W.3d 676, 680 (Mo.Ct.App. 2011) (“Pursuant to section 558.011.5, the [Board] has the statutory authority to extend [an inmate's] conditional release date for failing to complete the sex offender program....”); Spencer v. State of Missouri, 334 S.W.3d 559, 569 (2010) n.8 (holding that because “[s]exual offenders are required to complete MOSOP by statute and DOC policy,” the Board is “statutorily authorized to extend [a] conditional release date based on [an inmate's] failure to complete the [MOSOP]”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
DALE FRAZIER, Movant-Appellant v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent
(3×)
W.D. 2010): “[MOSOP] guidelines provide that successful completion of Phase I is dependent upon the offender’s acknowledgement and admittance of their sexual offense and a willingness to work toward personal change.” Id. at 563 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brandon v. State
See also § 558.011.5, RSMo 2016 (“The date of conditional release from the prison term may be extended up to a maximum of the entire sentence of imprisonment by the board of probation and parole.”); Spencer v. State, 334 S.W.3d 559, 572 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (“Failure to complete [MoSOP] does, not add additional punishment, such as an additional sentence, beyond that which has already been imposed upon the ... offender.” (internal quotation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frederick Spencer v. George Lombardi
(2×)
Spencer v. State, 334 S.W.3d 559, 561 (Mo.App.W.D.2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Billy J. Reynolds and Jody Miller v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole
“DOC developed the MoSOP to comply with section 589.040.” Spencer v. State, 334 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Mo.App.W.D. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bleeke v. Lemmon
Ct. for Webster Cray., 801 N.W.2d 513, 528 (Iowa 2011) (applying Justice O’Connor’s approach and concluding that "[t]he State is not using a threatened loss of credits to try to extract testimony; instead, it is attempting to administer a bona fide rehabilitation program for sex offenders who have already been found guilty under a statutory scheme that afforded them all required due process.”), r'hing denied; Spencer v. State, 334 S.W.3d 559, 563-68 (Mo.Ct.App.2010) (applying Justice Kennedy’s approach and concluding that extending conditional release date to maximum prison term and de…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Missouri Board of Probation & Parole
Spencer v. State, 334 S.W.3d 559, 572 (Mo. App.2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Iowa v. Iowa District Court for Webster County v. Iowa District Court for Webster County
See, e.g., People v. Lehmkuhl, 117 P.3d 98, 108 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004); Spencer v. State, 334 S.W.3d 559, 568 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010); Dzul v. State, 56 P.3d 875 , 884–85 (Nev. 2002); Wilson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 942 A.2d 270, 273 (Pa. Commw.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Interest Of: T.C.N.
ED 94743.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Dec 21, 2010.
Francis X. Duda, St. Louis, MO, for appellant., Steven P. Kuenzel, James W. McGetti-gan, Jr., Washington, MO, for respondent.
Sullivan, Ahrens, Mooney.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.In this step-parent adoption case, the natural mother, D.M.N., appeals from the trial court’s judgment and decree of adoption terminating the mother’s parental rights to her minor daughter, T.C.N., and granting the petition for adoption of T.C.N. filed by the child’s natural father and the father’s wife. An opinion would have no precedential value. We have furnished the parties with a memorandum, for their, information only, explaining the reasons for our decision. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b)(1) and (5).