OTT LAW

Gordon Dana Evans, Movant-Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

Decision date: Unknown

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 Southern District Case Style: Gordon Dana Evans, Movant-Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: 21736 Handdown Date: 03/06/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Scott County, Hon. David A. Dolan Counsel for Appellant: David Simpson Counsel for Respondent: Barbara Chesser Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: John E. Parrish, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Shrum and Barney, J.J., concur. Opinion: This is an appeal of a Rule 24.035 motion. This court finds it is without appellate jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case due to non-compliance with Rule 74.01. The appeal is dismissed. Gordon Dana Evans (movant) pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree and armed criminal action. Section 565.021.1 and 571.015, RSMo 1994. Punishment was assessed at life imprisonment for each offense. Concurrent sentences were imposed. Defendant thereafter filed a motion for post-conviction relief as permitted by Rule 24.035. Counsel was appointed for movant and an amended motion filed. After an evidentiary hearing, the motion court filed findings of fact and conclusions of law that included an "ORDER" stating "that movant's sentence is set aside . . . and the cause remanded for resentencing before a different judge and such further proceedings as are appropriate." There is no writing or docket entry included in the record on appeal that is denominated "judgment," nor is the "ORDER" that is appended to the findings of fact and conclusions of law denominated as such. "Rule 24.035 motions are governed by the rules of civil procedure 'insofar as applicable.' Rule 24.035(a)." Williams v. State, 954 S.W.2d 710, 711

(Mo.App. 1997). "A judgment is entered when a writing signed by the judge and denominated 'judgment' or 'decree' is filed. A judgment may be a separate document or included in the docket sheet of the case." Rule 74.01(a). There is no judgment included in the record on appeal that was filed in this court. A prerequisite for appellate review is a final judgment. Williams v. Westrip, 917 S.W.2d 590, 591 (Mo.App. 1996). Further, in order to dispose of all issues presented in a Rule 24.035 case, as is required in order to have a final judgment, a motion court must "'discharge the movant or resentence the movant or order a new trial or correct the judgment and sentence as appropriate.'" Williams v. State, 954 S.W.2d at 711, quoting Rule 24.035(j). See Rule 74.01(b). This does not appear to have been done in this case. Appeal dismissed. 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

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

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-lawper_curiam3,374 words

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-lawper_curiam1,516 words

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-lawper_curiam3,993 words

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.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,603 words