Donald L. Queen, Jr., Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownED88014
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.
Opinion
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: Donald L. Queen, Jr., Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: ED88014 Handdown Date: 02/20/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Knox County, Hon. Russell Steele Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Jayne T. Woods Opinion Summary: Donald L. Queen appeals the circuit court's overruling of his petition to reopen his post-conviction relief motion proceedings. DISMISSED. Division Four holds: Queen does not appeal from a final judgment, therefore, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Citation: Opinion Author: Roy L. Richter, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Knaup Crane and Sullivan, JJ., concur. Opinion: Donald L. Queen ("Movant") appeals the motion court's denial of his petition to reopen Movant's post-conviction relief motion proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND Movant was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment following conviction by a jury of first-degree burglary, attempted first-degree arson, three counts of first degree assault, and one count of first-degree tampering. Movant filed a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief which the motion court denied without evidentiary hearing. Choosing not to appeal this denial, Movant filed a petition to reopen his post-conviction relief motion proceedings. On April 7, 2006, Appellant's motion was overruled via a docket entry. Movant appeals. II. DISCUSSION A final judgment is a prerequisite to appellate review. Belger v. State, 202 S.W.3d 96, 96 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). We must strictly enforce the requirements of Rule 74.01 (a). Id. Rule 74.01 (a) dictates that a judgment is final when it is written, signed by the judge, denominated "judgment" or "decree" and filed. See Rule 74.01(a). Here, the docket entry overruling Movant's petition fails to include any of these requirements. The ruling from which Movant appeals is not a final judgment. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal. III. CONCLUSION This appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
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.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
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.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
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.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976
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.