In an action for confinement as a sexually violent predator, appellant had the right to effective trial counsel, but challenging the judgment requires appellant to advance a theory to the Court of Appeals. The theory might be \u201cthe meaningful-hearing standard [,]\u201d or the failure-and-prejudice standard, but appellant made no showing under either. Appellant \u201cpresents no evidence that her identification as a transgender woman would in fact make her less dangerous to reoffend\u201d nor how \u201ca reasonable attorney would [have shown that] identification as transgender would have rendered her any less dangerous to reoffend or would have reasonably affected the outcome of her trial.\u201d Instructions specified the offenses on which the jury could find appellant a sexually violent predator and so did not mislead the jury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Jerry Davis, a\/k\/a Jerry M. Davis, Jr., a\/k\/a Jerry Miller Davis, Jr. vs. State of Missouri<\/em><\/a> If you would like to speak to an attorney, call us at 816-524-4949 or visit our website <\/a>to schedule a consultation.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In an action for confinement as a sexually violent predator, appellant had the right to effective trial counsel, but challenging the judgment requires appellant to advance a theory to the Court of Appeals. The theory might be \u201cthe meaningful-hearing standard … Continue reading
(Overview Summary)<\/a>
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District – WD83673<\/p>\n\n\n\n