Case Title: State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Eugene Logan, Appellant.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC100325

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 2024-04-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 
en banc 
STATE OF MISSOURI, 
) 
Opinion issued April 30, 2024 
 
) 
 
Respondent, 
) 
 
) 
v. 
) 
No. SC100325 
 
) 
JAMES EUGENE LOGAN,  
) 
 
) 
 
Appellant. 
) 
  
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BOONE COUNTY 
The Honorable Stephanie M. Morrell, Judge 
 
 
James Logan was found guilty of one count of fourth-degree assault after an incident 
that occurred in Columbia on July 17, 2022.  Logan presents two points on appeal, in which 
he contends the circuit court erred by conducting his initial appearance and arraignment 
without first appointing counsel.  Finding no error, this Court affirms. 
Factual and Procedural Background1 
 
At approximately 9 p.m. July 17, 2022, Victim was walking home from a bar in 
Columbia when he encountered Logan.  Victim testified at trial that Logan was glaring at 
him and appeared agitated.  Victim tried to avoid Logan, but Logan began following him 
                                              
1  Portions of this section are taken from the court of appeals’ opinion by Judge Alok Ahuja. 
 
2 
and repeatedly asking where he was going.  Victim testified he began to believe he was in 
danger and would have to defend himself.  
 
Victim testified Logan ran up behind him as he was heading into an alley and “tried 
to swing and kick at” him.  Victim turned around and started moving backward into the 
alley.  Victim stopped for a moment, and Logan ran up to him and tried to kick him again.  
At that point, Victim “took a swing at [Logan] and gave him a jab” in the left side of the 
head.  Logan then “became very, very agitated,” threw his hat at Victim, and unsuccessfully 
tried to grab a steel gutter off the side of a building in the alley.  Logan then pulled a two- 
to three-foot metal ring off of a trash can and held it over his head as if preparing to strike 
Victim. 
 
Logan continued to follow Victim as he walked toward his home.  As the two men 
came into a poorly lit area, Logan jumped in front of Victim and tried to grab him.  The 
Victim “threw two or three right hooks” and made impact at least once.  Logan stumbled 
out into the street, tripped over the curb, and fell, striking the back of his head on the 
pavement.  Victim caught the attention of a passing police vehicle, and, after a struggle, 
the officers detained Logan. 
 
The state filed an information charging Logan with fourth-degree assault.2  On 
August 18, 2022, the circuit court conducted an initial appearance and arraignment during 
which Logan appeared without counsel and pleaded not guilty.  The docket entry reflects 
the circuit court informed Logan of the misdemeanor charged, the right to retain counsel, 
                                              
2  Unlike felonies, misdemeanors may be initiated by the state filing an information.  See 
Rules 21.01, 21.02. 
 
3 
the right to have counsel appointed if he cannot obtain counsel, and the right to remain 
silent.  
 
A special public defender entered his appearance on Logan’s behalf on September 
14, 2022.  On October 24, 2022, Logan filed a motion to dismiss arguing his lack of counsel 
at the August 18 appearance violated both his constitutional right to counsel and Rule 
31.02(a). 
 
After a bench trial, the circuit court overruled Logan’s motion to dismiss, found him 
guilty, and sentenced him to 15 days in the Boone County jail.3  Logan appeals. 
Analysis 
 
Logan asserts two points on appeal.  He contends his lack of counsel at his August 
18 appearance, which was both his initial appearance and arraignment, violated Rule 
31.02(a) as well as his constitutional right to counsel.  This case comes before this Court 
in conjunction with four other cases presenting the same right-to-counsel questions.  See 
State v. Woolery, No. SC100170, __ S.W.3d __ (Mo. banc Apr. 30, 2024); State v. Phillips, 
No. SC100247, __ S.W.3d __ (Mo. banc Apr. 30, 2024); State v. Logan, No. SC100265, 
__ S.W.3d __ (Mo. banc Apr. 30, 2024); and State v. Mills, No. SC100303, __ S.W.3d __ 
(Mo. banc Apr. 30, 2024). 
 
In Woolery, handed down this same day, this Court rejected the same arguments 
Logan presents here.  The Court explained Rule 31.02(a) does not guarantee the presence 
of counsel at an initial court appearance because the rule expressly contemplates a 
                                              
3  The circuit court ordered Logan’s sentence to run consecutively to his sentences in 
another case. 
 
4 
defendant “may be without counsel upon his first appearance” and obligates the circuit 
court to appoint counsel only upon a showing and determination of indigency.  Woolery, 
No. SC100170, __ S.W.3d at __, slip op. at 11-13.  No such showing or determination was 
made prior to or during Logan’s August 18 appearance.  The circuit court, therefore, had 
no duty to appoint counsel under Rule 31.02(a).  
 
This Court further held in Woolery that initial appearances and arraignments are not 
critical stages of a criminal prosecution triggering the constitutional right to counsel 
because, in Missouri, neither proceeding involves “a trial-like confrontation” during which 
a lack of counsel “would impair defense on the merits.”  Id. at 13-19.  The Court noted 
that, unlike in other states, “the right to assert any defense or objection is preserved and is 
not irretrievably lost” if not asserted at an initial appearance or arraignment.  Id. at 15, 17 
(alterations and quotations omitted).  As such, “the only way [Logan’s] claim may succeed 
is if he suffered some recognizable prejudice from counsel’s absence” at his initial 
appearance and arraignment.  Id. at 18. 
 
Logan argues he was prejudiced by the lack of counsel at his initial 
appearance/arraignment because it worked to deny him the opportunity to obtain an 
automatic change of judge under Rule 32.07(b), which requires an application for change 
of judge to be made within 10 days of the defendant’s initial plea.  Logan explains counsel 
did not enter his appearance until September 14, which was well more than 10 days after 
the initial plea at his August 18 appearance.  He argues he therefore lost the opportunity to 
file for an automatic change of judge because counsel was not appointed at his August 18 
appearance. 
 
5 
 
Logan fails to make any specific argument, however, as to why his inability to file 
for an automatic change of judge prejudiced him.  Once counsel entered his appearance, 
he made no attempt to obtain a change of judge, nor does Logan argue on appeal that the 
trial judge exhibited any bias or in any way decided his case unfairly.  As such, Logan has 
failed to demonstrate that the lack of counsel at his August 18 appearance resulted in 
prejudice.  Logan’s Points I and II are denied. 
Conclusion 
 
For the reasons set forth above, the circuit court’s judgment is affirmed. 
 
 
______________________________ 
Robin Ransom, Judge 
 
 
All concur.