Ricky D. Purham, Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent.

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: Ricky D. Purham, Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent. Case Number: ED86733 Handdown Date: 08/29/2006 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Larry Kendrick Counsel for Appellant: Scott Thompson and Amanda R. Schehr Counsel for Respondent: Daniel N. McPherson Opinion Summary: Ricky Purham appeals the circuit court's judgment denying his Rule 24.035 postconviction relief motion. DISMISSED. Division Three holds: Because Purham failed to sign his Rule 24.035 postconviction relief motion, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it; likewise, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. Citation: Opinion Author: Kenneth M. Romines, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Norton, P.J., and Mooney, J., concur. Opinion: Ricky Purham (Purham) appeals from the Circuit Court's denial of his Rule 24.035 post-conviction relief motion. We dismiss this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Purham was charged, as a prior and persistent felony offender, with two counts of first degree assault and one

count of armed criminal action. Purham entered a guilty plea under North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). After a hearing, the Circuit Court accepted Purham's plea, and sentenced him to three concurrent 22-year sentences. Purham later filed a Rule 24.035 motion, in which he alleged his plea counsel was ineffective. Purham did not sign this motion. The Circuit Court, Hon. Larry Kendrick, denied the motion. All motions filed with the court must be signed. Rule 55.03(a); Tooley v. State, 20 S.W.3d 519, 520 (Mo. banc 2000) (an "unsigned, unverified motion for post-conviction relief is a nullity and does not invoke the jurisdiction of the court"). See also Blanton v. State, 159 S.W.3d 870 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). Because Purham failed to sign his Rule 24.035 motion, the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction to rule on it, and this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. See Blanton, 159 S.W.3d at 871. DISMISSED. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.