Ott Law Firm

Derrick Jones vs. State of Missouri

Decision date: April 13, 2010WD70785

Parties & Roles

Appellant
Derrick Jones

Judges

Opinion Author
Karen King Mitchell
Trial Court Judge
Jack R·James Edward Welsh

Disposition

Undetermined

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar criminal law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Syllabus

WESTERN DISTRICT

DERRICK JONES,

Appellant, v.

STATE OF MISSOURI,

Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

WD70785

OPINION FILED:

April 13, 2010

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The Honorable Jack R. Grate, Jr., Judge

Before Division III: James Edward Welsh, Presiding Judge, and Mark D. Pfeiffer and Karen King Mitchell, Judges

On December 23, 2005, the Appellant Derrick Jones filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 29.15 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County ("circuit court"). On September 26, 2007, Jones filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File Out of Time 29.15 Post-Conviction Relief Motion for Cause ("Motion for Leave"). On September 9, 2008, the circuit court took up and denied the Motion for Leave. Although the circuit court delineated its September 9, 2008 order a "Judgment," upon review of the record, it appears that the circuit court has not entered a final order or a final judgment on Jones's December 23, 2005 Rule 29.15 motion. Absent an appealable final judgment or order, we lack appellate jurisdiction. Rule 81.04(a) ("No . . . appeal shall be

2 effective unless the notice of appeal shall be filed not later than ten days after the judgment or order appealed from becomes final."); Rule 74.01; State v. Saffaf, 81 S.W.3d 526, 527 (Mo. banc 2002). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 1

Karen King Mitchell, Judge

James Edward Welsh, Presiding Judge, and Mark D. Pfeiffer, Judge, concur.

1 This issue remains jurisdictional, post Webb ex rel. J.C.W. v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. banc 2009). While the Missouri Constitution grants the courts jurisdiction over civil actions (including post-conviction cases), it clearly contemplates both original and appellate jurisdiction, see MISSOURI CONSTITUTION, article V, sections 3 & 14, and it gives our Supreme Court power to "establish rules relating to practice, procedure and pleading for all courts and administrative tribunals, which shall have the force and effect of law."

MO. CONST. art. V, § 5. Supreme Court rules delineating the procedures for when and how trial court jurisdiction ends and appellate jurisdiction begins do not violate the Constitution or run afoul of the Supreme Court's holding in Webb. City of Greenwood v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., No. WD70495, 2010 WL 431369, at *7, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 133, at *21-22 (Mo. App. W.D. Feb. 9, 2010).

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Rules

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,374 words
Read opinion

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,516 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,993 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976

affirmed

Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,670 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

Read opinion