Ricky D. Purham, Appellant v. State of Missouri, Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownED86733
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: 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.
Related Opinions
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, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
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.