Creig Waserman, Appellant, v. James Purkett, Respondent

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Creig Waserman, Appellant, v. James Purkett, Respondent Case Number: ED86233 Handdown Date: 08/09/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Francois County, Hon. James H. Kelly, Judge Counsel for Appellant: Creig Waserman, Pro se Counsel for Respondent: Deborah Daniels Opinion Summary: Creig Waserman appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: No appeal lies from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Citation: Opinion Author: Glenn A. Norton, C.J. Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crane and Shaw, JJ., concur Opinion:

Appellant, Creig Waserman, appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The appeal is dismissed. This Court has a duty to initially determine its jurisdiction. If we lack jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, then it should be dismissed. Buff v. Roper , 155 S.W.3d 811, 812 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). Appellant seeks to appeal from the circuit court's judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. An appeal does not lie from the denial of a petition for habeas corpus. Blackmon v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole , 97 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. banc 2003); Fleming v. Rowley , 148 S.W.3d 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004).

We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant has filed a response asking this Court to convert his appeal to a petition for writ of habeas corpus. We decline to do so. A petitioner's remedy where a petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied is to file a new writ petition in a higher court. Webster v. Purkett , 110 S.W.3d 832, 837 (Mo. App. E.D.2003). Appellant has not filed a new writ petition. The appeal is dismissed for lack of an appealable judgment.

Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.