John H. Smith, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Missouri and St. Louis County Police Department, Defendants/Respondents.
Decision date: May 22, 2007ED89853
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- John H. Smith, Jr., Plaintiff/
- Respondent
- State of Missouri and St. Louis County Police Department, Defendants/
Disposition
Dismissed
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: John H. Smith, Jr., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. State of Missouri and St. Louis County Police Department, Defendants/Respondents. Case Number: ED89853 Handdown Date: 08/21/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Maura B. McShane Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Linda S. Wasserman Opinion Summary: John H. Smith Jr. appeals from the circuit court's order entered May 22, 2007 denying his application for habeas corpus ad testificandum. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: This Court has no jurisdiction over Smith's appeal because there is no final, appealable judgment. Citation: Opinion Author: Patricia L. Cohen, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Shaw and Baker, JJ., concur. Opinion: John H. Smith, Jr. (Appellant) appeals from an order entered by the St. Louis County Circuit Court on May 22, 2007 denying his application for habeas corpus ad testificandum. We dismiss the appeal.
On March 7, 2007, Appellant filed a civil petition against the State of Missouri and the St. Louis County Police Department for replevin. Appellant sought to recover various items and money that he alleged were removed from his home during a police investigation on October 2, 2002. Appellant is a prisoner in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections at Potosi Correctional Center. The trial court set the cause for a scheduling conference on June 14, 2007 to set a discovery schedule. Appellant filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum, requesting that writ issue to the Superintendent of Potosi Correctional Center requiring him to bring Appellant to the scheduling conference. On May 22, 2007, the trial court entered an order denying Appellant's application for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum. Appellant then appeal from this order. Respondent St. Louis County Police Department (Respondent) has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending it is not a final, appealable judgment. Appellant has not filed a response. Typically, an appellate court only has jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all issues and parties and leave nothing for future determination. Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 244 (Mo. banc 1997); Rule 74.01(b). Any judgment adjudicating fewer than all claims or all parties does not terminate the action and it is subject to revision by the trial court at any time until final judgment. Goodson v. National Sports and Recreation, Inc., 136 S.W.3d 98, 99 (Mo.App.E.D. 2004). Here, the order in question does not resolve the underlying claim in the case regarding replevin of money and items taken from Appellant's home. The order does not resolve one distinct claim in the case. Rather, it is a miscellaneous interlocutory order regarding the Appellant's application for habeas corpus ad testificandum. "For a judgment to be final and appealable, it must be one that finally disposes of at least one claim on the merits and not a ruling on miscellaneous issues that does not resolve at least one claim." Bryant v. City of University City, 105 S.W.3d 855, 856 (Mo.App.E.D. 2003). The order is interlocutory and not appealable. Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 74.01cited
Rule 74.01
Cases
- bryant v city of university city 105 sw3d 855cited
Bryant v. City of University City, 105 S.W.3d 855
- gibson v brewer 952 sw2d 239cited
Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239
Related Opinions
Other opinions in the same practice area.
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, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.