Ricardo Franklin, Appellant, v. Autozoners, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.
Decision date: November 17, 2009ED93585
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Ricardo Franklin
- Respondent
- Autozoners, Inc., and Division of Employment Security
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"affirmed","scope":null}
- {"type":"dismissed","scope":null}
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
RICARDO FRANKLIN, ) No. ED93585 ) Claimant/Appellant, ) ) vs. ) Appeal from the Labor and ) Industrial Relations Commission AUTOZONERS, INC., and ) DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, ) ) FILED: November 17, 2009 Respondents. )
Ricardo Franklin (Claimant) appeals the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (Commission) decision denying his application for unemployment benefits. We dismiss the appeal. The Division of Employment Security (Division) concluded that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Claimant then appealed to the Commission, which affirmed the decision. Claimant has now filed a notice of appeal to this Court. The Division has filed a motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal, asserting it is untimely. Claimant has not filed a response to the motion. Section 288.210, RSMo 2000, requires that a notice of appeal to this Court from the Commission's decision be filed within twenty days of the decision becoming final. The
2 Commission's decision becomes final ten days after it is mailed to the parties. Section 288.200.2, RSMo 2000. Here, the Commission mailed its decision to Claimant on August 3, 2009. Therefore, the notice of appeal to this Court was due on or before September 2, 2009. Sections 288.200.2, 288.210. Claimant mailed the notice of appeal to the Commission in an envelope with a postmark of September 3, 2009, which is deemed the date of the filing of his notice of appeal. Section 288.240, RSMo 2000. Claimant's notice of appeal is untimely. "Section 288.200 RSMo does not provide for late filing and does not recognize any exceptions for filing out of time." McCuin Phillips v. Clean-Tech , 34 S.W.3d 854, 855 (Mo. App. E.D.2000). As a result, an untimely notice of appeal deprives this Court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and we must dismiss it. Withrow v. Shining Example Floor Maintenance Co., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 302, 303 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009). The Division's motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
__________________________________ KENNETH M. ROMINES, CHIEF JUDGE
NANNETTE A. BAKER, J. and ROY L. RICHTER, J., concur.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Statutes
- RSMo § 288.200cited
Section 288.200 RSMo
- RSMo § 288.200.2cited
Section 288.200.2, RSMo
- RSMo § 288.210cited
Section 288.210, RSMo
- RSMo § 288.240cited
Section 288.240, RSMo
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Michael Williams, Appellant, v. Reuther Chrysler-Jeep Sales, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2010)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictJune 29, 2010#ED94484
Charlene Grissom, Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2010)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 23, 2010#ED94138
Leticia Garcia, Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2009)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 17, 2009#ED93639
Latasha Gayfield, Appellant, v. Boston Market Corporation, and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2009)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 4, 2009#ED93194
Lisa Essary, Appellant, v. Division of Employment Security, Respondent.(2009)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictJuly 14, 2009#ED92988
Danyell Bonds, Appellant, v. White Castle System, Inc., and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.(2009)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictJuly 14, 2009#ED93014