Michael Wheeler, Claimant/Appellant, v. Advance Processing Systems, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

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: Michael Wheeler, Claimant/Appellant, v. Advance Processing Systems, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents. Case Number: ED87997 Handdown Date: 06/27/2006 Appeal From: Labor and Industrial Relations Commission Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Cynthia A. Quetsch Opinion Summary: Michael Wheeler appeals from the decision of the labor and industrial relations commission regarding unemployment benefits. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: This Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Wheeler's notice of appeal to this Court was untimely, and there is no mechanism for a late notice of appeal. Citation: Opinion Author: Glenn A. Norton, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Knaup Crane and Shaw, JJ., concur. Opinion: Michael Wheeler (Claimant) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision denying his claim for unemployment benefits. The Division of Employment Security has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a timely notice of appeal. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion. Claimant's notice of appeal to this Court is untimely. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, requires that the notice of appeal to this Court from the Commission's decision be filed within twenty days of decision becoming final. Section 288.210,

RSMo 2000. The Commission's decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000. Here, the decision was mailed to Claimant on March 23, 2006. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due on Monday, April 24, 2006. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210, 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant's notice of appeal was filed on April 27, 2006, which is out of time. When faced with an untimely notice of appeal in an unemployment case, this Court can only dismiss the appeal because the unemployment statutes make no provision for late filing of a notice of appeal. Phillips v. Clean-Tech, 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). An untimely notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Frenchie v. Division of Employment Sec., 156 S.W.3d 437, 438 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. Claimant's appeal is dismissed 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.