—Kerry Hill, B1Daily

Anthony Sinks’ murder case is no longer simply a story about what happened inside a Cape Girardeau Hardee’s in 2018. More than five years after his conviction, the legal battle has entered a new arena, with Sinks now asking a federal court to examine his imprisonment.

Sinks was convicted following a bench trial in April 2021 of first-degree murder and armed criminal action in the killing of Derwin Simmons. KFVS reported that Simmons was found suffering from multiple gunshot wounds inside the restaurant and later died at a hospital.

The trial court subsequently sentenced Sinks to life imprisonment without parole for murder plus 30 years for armed criminal action, with the sentences running consecutively. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal in 2022.

But Sinks has continued fighting.

The Self-Defense Argument

The case originated with a bitter personal conflict. According to the Missouri Court of Appeals’ account of the evidence, Simmons was the fiancé of Sinks’ ex-wife. Sinks maintained from the beginning that the shooting was committed in self-defense.

The evidence described by the appellate court, however, was devastating to that defense.

The court said Sinks and Simmons argued inside the restaurant and that Sinks threatened to kill Simmons. According to the court’s summary, Simmons was unarmed and was reaching to place his cellphone into his pocket when Sinks opened fire. The court said Sinks shot Simmons five times, including twice after Simmons was already on the ground.

That record helps explain why overturning this conviction has proved difficult.

His First Appeals Failed

Sinks challenged his conviction through Missouri’s appellate system, but the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in State v. Sinks in 2022.

He then pursued post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15.

That effort raised several significant complaints about his representation. Among other things, Sinks argued that his attorneys should have pursued a speedy-trial claim, that counsel improperly advised him to waive a jury and proceed with a bench trial, and that counsel should have pursued a plea agreement.

The appellate court rejected all three arguments in September 2024.

On the speedy-trial issue, the court acknowledged that 977 days elapsed between Sinks’ arrest and trial, enough to trigger constitutional scrutiny, but concluded much of the delay resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic, Sinks had not asserted his speedy-trial right and he failed to establish the necessary prejudice.

The court similarly rejected his challenge to the jury waiver. It concluded that counsel had strategic reasons for recommending a bench trial and that the record demonstrated Sinks knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury.

His argument concerning a potential plea bargain went nowhere as well. The court found no indication prosecutors would actually have offered one and emphasized that Sinks had consistently maintained that he acted in self-defense.

The Missouri Court of Appeals denied rehearing and transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court in October 2024.

The Next Step Is Already Happening: Federal Habeas Corpus

This is where the story becomes interesting.

Sinks has now taken his challenge into federal court.

Federal court records show that on November 21, 2025, Sinks filed Sinks v. Adams in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The proceeding is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal mechanism through which a state prisoner can challenge custody on federal constitutional grounds after pursuing available state remedies.

The case is docketed as 4:25-cv-01720.

And importantly, it is active.

The federal docket shows Sinks is represented by attorney Kevin L. Schriener. As recently as August 10, 2026, federal court records showed both sides had consented to proceedings before the magistrate judge assigned to the case.

So this isn’t merely a theoretical “next step.”

The next step has already begun.

What Could His Defense Argue Now?

Federal habeas review is considerably narrower than receiving another trial.

Sinks’ attorneys cannot simply ask a federal judge to reconsider the evidence and decide whether the judge who convicted him reached the wrong conclusion. Generally, they need to identify a violation of federal constitutional law capable of surviving the demanding standards governing §2254 petitions.

That makes constitutional claims particularly important.

Issues involving the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, the right to a speedy trial, whether a jury-trial waiver was constitutionally valid, due process, or other preserved constitutional questions could potentially form part of the federal litigation.

But there is a major obstacle: Missouri’s courts have already considered and rejected several of those arguments.

For example, the Missouri Court of Appeals concluded that counsel wasn’t constitutionally ineffective for failing to pursue dismissal on speedy-trial grounds. It also found that Sinks’ jury waiver was knowing and voluntary.

A federal habeas court therefore isn’t starting with a blank sheet of paper.

A Long Shot, But a Real Legal Avenue

Sinks faces an uphill climb.

His direct appeal failed.

His Missouri post-conviction challenge failed.

His request for rehearing or transfer failed.

And the state appellate court’s opinion rejected several of his ineffective-assistance arguments in unusually direct terms.

But habeas corpus exists precisely because a state conviction does not necessarily end federal constitutional review.

If the federal district court ultimately rejects his petition, additional litigation could potentially involve seeking a certificate of appealability and attempting to take qualifying federal constitutional issues to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

That does not mean Sinks will succeed.

It means the legal machinery has not stopped moving.

Anthony Sinks entered the Missouri system arguing that he acted in self-defense. He emerged from his trial with a first-degree murder conviction and a sentence ensuring he would never ordinarily leave prison.

His state-court attempts to dismantle that judgment have failed.

Now his defense has reached for one of the last major tools available to a state prisoner: asking the federal judiciary whether the Constitution gives him another path out.

—Kerry Hill, B1Daily