Law & Schriener, LLC.

ST. Louis Criminal Defense Attorneys’ Successes


Federal Weapons and Drug Charges

Acquittal After Jury Trial
United States v. O.M., Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis, MO — Mr. M. was charged with armed car-jacking. Tried the case to a jury and successfully obtained a not guilty verdict.

United States v. H.B., Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis, MO — Mr. B was charged with two counts of felon in possession of a firearm. Tried the case to a jury and successfully obtained a not guilty verdict.

United States v. K.R., Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division, Cape Girardeau, MO — Mr. R. was charged with manufacturing marijuana on national parkland. Tried the case to a jury and successfully obtained a not guilty verdict.

Federal Sex Crime Charges

Acquittal After Jury Trial
United States v. M.W., Eastern District of Missouri, St. Louis, MO — Mr. W. was charged with sexual assault on the Arch grounds. Tried the case to a jury and successfully obtained a not guilty verdict.

State Weapons Charges

Acquittal After Jury Trial
State v. T.B., Jefferson County Circuit Court, Hillsboro, MO — Mr. B. was charged with Unlawful Use of a Weapon. Tried the case to a jury and successfully obtained not guilty verdict.

State Assault Charges

Successful Pretrial Negotiation Ended in Dropped Charges
State v. J.H., St. Louis City Circuit Court, St. Louis, MO — Mr. H. was charged with a serious assault. Careful and intensive investigation allowed us to successfully negotiate dropped charges.

State Tampering and Property Damage Charges

Successful Pretrial Negotiation Ended in Dropped Charges
State v. S.R., St. Louis City Circuit Court, St. Louis, MO — Mr. R. was charged with Tampering First and Property Damage. Careful and intensive investigation allowed us to successfully negotiate dropped charges.

A Sample of Our Post-Conviction Success Stories

Whitiker v. United States, No. 4:12-CV-1467-JCH (E.D. Mo.) – United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Mr. Whitker’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentences filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Client’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence granted on two grounds: 1) 2 level increase in sentencing guidelines for unauthorized access device was error; 2) court will resentence to determine whether aggravated identify theft counts should be run consecutively or concurrently. Rule 59(e) motion granted as to criminal history calculation. Upon resentencing client received a forty-month lower sentence.

Sills v. United States, No. 4:12-CV-1770-JCH (E.D. Mo.) – United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Mr.Sill’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255. Mr. Sills entered a guilty plea for attempting to persuade a witness not to testify in a state trial. Mr. Sills argued that no factual basis existed for the guilty plea because an “official proceeding” had to be a federal proceeding and not a state court proceeding. Government concede motion.

Bilauksi v. Steele, No. 4:09‑CV‑1983‑RWS (E.D. Mo.) – Untied States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri conditionally granted Mr. Bilauski’s federal habeas petition filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. The district court found that the Missouri Court of Appeals has unreasonably interpreted United States Supreme Court precedent and unreasonably applied the facts in denying post-conviction relief.

State v. J.P. – Client entered a guilty plea in 2006 to a misdemeanor for riding public transportation without proof of valid fare. Client was not represented by counsel. In 2013, client retained services of Law & Schriener, LLC who filed a motion to withdraw his plea on the basis of manifest injustice. The court granted the motion and the prosecutor dismissed the case.

State v. E.T.– Client, who was not a United States citizen, entered a guilty plea in 2002 to a misdemeanor passing a bad check charge. For immigration purposes a bad check charge is a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT). Because he had another misdemeanor conviction which was also considered a CIMT, he was deportable. In 2012, a motion to withdraw his guilty plea based on manifest injustice pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.07(d) was filed. After a hearing, the court granted the motion and vacated the client’s guilty plea and conviction. The prosecuting attorney eventually dismissed the charge.

State v. C.N. – In 2006, client, a Nigerian national on student visa enters guilty pleas to two misdemeanors ‑ stealing and 3rd degree assault ‑ believing that doing so would not result in his deportation. When client attempts to adjust his status, he is informed that he must leave the country or he will be deported because he has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude. Motion to withdraw guilty pleas is filed in 2011 pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky because client was not sufficiently informed of deportation consequences of guilty pleas. Court grants motion allowing pleas to be withdrawn and the prosecutor dismissed the cases.

Johnson v. Kemna, 451 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 1996) – Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of state prisoner’s federal habeas case filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 as being time-barred. Case reversed and remanded to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri for further proceedings.

United States v. H.L.B., Case No. 4:95-CR-00XXX-XXX
Practice Area: Criminal defense.
Date: November 15, 1995
Outcome: Jury verdict of not guilty on both counts.
Description: This was a federal case in which the government charged my client with two counts of felon in possession of a weapon. He was found not guilty on each count.

United States v. Jones, 269 F.3d 919 (8th Cir. 2001)
Practice Area: Criminal defense
Date: November 01, 2001
Outcome: All four counts dismissed after reversal on appeal.
Description: This was a search and seizure issue; although the district court denied the motion to suppress, the Eighth Circuit reversed that denial, and remanded the case. I argued the case on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

State v. T.B.
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: June 25, 2010
Outcome: Jury verdict of not guilty.
Description: This was an unlawful use of a weapon case brought against a home owner in Jefferson County. We tried the case to a jury and won a verdict of not guilty.

United States v. K.R.
Practice Area: Criminal defense.
Date: September 28, 1993
Outcome: Jury verdict of not guilty.
Description: this was a federal case in which my client was charged with growing marijuana on federal property in the Southeastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri, in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. We tried the case to a jury and won a verdict of not guilty.

State v. A.F.
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: July 01, 2011.
Outcome: Charges dismissed.
Description: This was a St. Louis County case which was dismissed after the preliminary hearing.

United States v. C.C.
Practice Area: Criminal defense.
Date: January 01, 1994
Outcome: the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s Judgment of Conviction and remanded for entry of a judgment of acquittal.
Description: In this federal case, my client was charged with possessing with the intent to distribute drugs. Unfortunately, we lost at trial. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment of conviction, finding that there was insufficient evidence at trial from which a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

State v. C.M.
Practice Area: Criminal Defense
Date: May 9, 2012.
Outcome: After a lengthy preliminary hearing, the court declined to find probable cause on two of the charges against my client in a ten-count, four-case matter in Ozark County in Gainesville, Missouri. After a lengthy motion to suppress evidence, the court dismissed all but one of the remaining eight counts.
Description: My client was charged with possession of drugs, possession of explosive devices (a pipe bomb), defacing manufacturer’s number–motor vehicle, receiving stolen property (the motor vehicle), possession/manufacturing/selling an illegal weapon, unlawful use of drug paraphernalia, and hindering arrest, among other things. After a preliminary hearing, at which extensive testimony was adduced, the associate circuit court declined to find probable cause to believe that my client had committed two of the offenses charged. We subsequently filed a motion to suppress based, in part, upon a fatally flawed search warrant. The court granted that motion, in part, which resulted in the dismissal of several more charges. My client ended up with an extremely favorable disposition of probation on the remaining count.

State v. S.V.
Practice Area: Criminal defense.
Date: August 27, 2007
Outcome: The Court declined to find probable cause after a preliminary hearing.
Description: This was a stealing case, a violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. Sec.570.030.1. After a lengthy preliminary hearing in Knox County Associate Circuit Court in Missouri, the court declined to find probable cause and the case was thereafter dismissed.

Call us today at (314) 282-4188 to review and discuss your case.

Kevin L. Schriener, ESQ.

Call Now For An Initial Strategy Session
(314) 282-4188