Ott Law Firm

Robert J. Sorenson, Appellant v. Al Luebbers, Respondent.

Decision date: UnknownED85633

Parties & Roles

Respondent
Al Luebbers

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: Robert J. Sorenson, Appellant v. Al Luebbers, Respondent. Case Number: ED85633 Handdown Date: 03/29/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Francois County, Hon. James M. Kelly Counsel for Appellant: Robert J. Sorenson Counsel for Respondent: Michael J. Spillane Opinion Summary: Robert Sorenson appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: No appeal lies from a judgment dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Citation: Opinion Author: George W. Draper, III, C.J. Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan and Norton, J.J., concur. Opinion: Robert Sorenson (Appellant) appeals from a judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Appeal dismissed. We have a duty to initially determine whether we have jurisdiction. If we lack jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, then it should be dismissed. Fischer v. City of Washington, 55 S.W.3d 372, 377 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). Here, Appellant seeks to appeal from the circuit court's judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. An appeal does not lie from the denial of a petition for habeas corpus. Blackmon v. Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, 97 S.W.3d 458 (Mo. banc

2003); McDermott v. State, 120 S.W.3d 261, 262 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant has filed a response in which he argues that he has a constitutional right to have the trial court's ruling reviewed when his rights have been violated. However, even though Appellant may not have the right to appeal the ruling, he has a remedy. A petitioner's remedy where a petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied is to file a new writ petition in a higher court. Webster v. Purkett, 110 S.W.3d 832, 837 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). Appellant has not filed a new writ petition. The appeal is dismissed for lack of an 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.

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

Emily Omohundro vs. Denny Hoskins, Missouri Secretary of State, et al.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictJanuary 29, 2026#WD88567

reversed

The court reversed the trial court's approval of the summary statement for an initiative petition seeking to amend the Missouri Constitution to prevent public funds from benefiting nonpublic schools. The court agreed with the appellant that the summary statement was insufficient and unfair, and certified an alternative statement to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the ballot.

Civil Litigationmajority4,211 words
Read opinion

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and declared Senate Bill 22 unconstitutional, finding it violated the Missouri Constitution's original purpose requirement. The court invalidated SB 22 in its entirety, determining that the bill's scope expanded far beyond its original stated purpose of amending ballot summary procedures to include unrelated provisions regarding judicial appeals.

Civil Litigationmajority3,990 words
Read opinion

The court upheld the constitutionality of Missouri's SAFE Act and Medicaid ban, which prohibit gender transition medical treatments for minors. Challengers failed to demonstrate that these statutes violate due process, equal protection, or the gains of industry clause provisions of the Missouri Constitution.

per_curiam4,213 words
Read opinion