STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant v. ANDREW T. MOORE, Respondent
Decision date: September 27, 2024SD38196
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- STATE OF MISSOURI
- Respondent
- ANDREW T. MOORE
Judges
- Trial Court Judge
- Megan K
Disposition
Dismissed
Procedural posture: Appeal from grant of motion to dismiss allegations
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
In Division
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Appellant, ) No. SD38196 ) v. ) Filed: September 27, 2024 ) ANDREW T. MOORE, ) ) Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUTLER COUNTY
Honorable Megan K. Seay, Judge
DISMISSED
In three points relied on, the State appeals the trial court's grant of Andrew T. Moore's Motion to Dismiss All Allegations of Conduct Prior to January 1, 2017. Finding the State failed to timely file its notice of appeal, we accordingly dismiss. Facts and Procedural History On December 21, 2022, Moore was charged by felony information with one count of receiving stolen property, a class C felony, in violation of section
2
570.030 RSMo Cum. Supp (2017). 1 The information charged Moore with a continuing course of conduct from "on or about December 22, 2014 through November 30, 2018." On June 28, 2023, Moore filed a Motion to Dismiss All Allegations of Conduct Prior to January 1, 2017. Moore contended the "disposed of" provision of the receiving stolen property statute was "contained in Section 570.080" RSMo Cum. Supp.(2011) prior to January 1, 2017, and in section 570.030 after January 1, 2017. Moore contended that such conduct, therefore, was not a violation of section 570.030 before January 1, 2017. A hearing was held on Moore's motion. On August 24, 2023, the trial court granted Moore's motion. This appeal followed. The State challenges the trial court's order in three points relied on. However, because the State failed to follow section 547.200, the statute governing notice of appeal in this case, we dismiss the State's appeal. Analysis
"This Court has an obligation to determine, acting sua sponte when necessary, whether it has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal." State v. Harris, 675 S.W.3d 202, 204 (Mo. banc 2023) (quoting State v. Vandergrift, 669 S.W.3d 282, 287 (Mo. banc 2023)). "A party's right to an appeal in this state is derived solely from statute." P.D.E. v. Juvenile Officer, 669 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Mo. banc 2023). In this matter, the State was directed by this Court's September
1 All statutory citations are to RSMo (2016) unless otherwise indicated. All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2023). The legislature reorganized and made numerous changes to the criminal law statutes effective 2017.
3
11, 2023 order to provide the statutory authority for its appeal. In response, the State argued this was a permissible interlocutory appeal, and directed us to section 547.200, 2 which in relevant part provides:
- An appeal may be taken by the state through the prosecuting or circuit
attorney from any order or judgment the substantive effect of which results in:
....
(3) Suppressing evidence[.]
Significantly, section 547.200.4 directs: "Notices of appeal involving appeals under subsection 1 of this section shall be filed in the appropriate court within five days of the entry of the order of the trial court." (emphasis added). 3
The record reflects the now-challenged order was entered on August 24,
- The State filed its untimely notice of appeal on September 5, 2023.
2 The State argues in the alternative that it appeals from a final judgment. This argument is unpersuasive. The cases cited by the State are inapposite, in that here, the information was not found to be insufficient by the trial court and the charge itself has not been dismissed. Indeed, the record reflects that the charge remains pending below.
3 As recently explained by the Supreme Court of Missouri:
Section 547.200.3 provides the appeal authorized in § 547.200.1 is an "interlocutory appeal[.]" See also State v. Smiley, 478 S.W.3d 411, 414 (Mo. banc 2016) (internal quotation omitted) (explaining "[s]ubsection 547.200.1 permits the state to appeal an interlocutory order or judgment" (internal quotation omitted)). Rule 30.02 governs interlocutory appeals by the State.
Harris, 675 S.W.3d at 205 n.3 (brackets in original). Rule 30.02 in relevant part states:
If the state is permitted by law to appeal an order or judgment that is not a final judgment, the appeal shall be prosecuted in the same manner as an appeal from a final judgment, except as follows:
(a) no such appeal shall be effective unless the notice of appeal shall be filed within the time provided by the statute authorizing the appeal[.]
4
Excluding weekends and holidays, the State's notice was filed seven days after the trial court's order, and therefore, two days after the notice of appeal was due. "The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. As a result, an appellate court must dismiss an appeal if the notice of appeal is untimely." P.D.E., 669 S.W.3d at 132 (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). As the State's notice of appeal was untimely per section 547.200.4, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
MARY W. SHEFFIELD, J. – OPINION AUTHOR
DON E. BURRELL, J. – CONCURS
JENNIFER R. GROWCOCK, C.J. – CONCURS
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 30.02cited
Rule 30.02
Cases
- pde v juvenile officer 669 sw3d 129cited
P.D.E. v. Juvenile Officer, 669 S.W.3d 129
- see also state v smiley 478 sw3d 411cited
See also State v. Smiley, 478 S.W.3d 411
- state v harris 675 sw3d 202cited
State v. Harris, 675 S.W.3d 202
- state v vandergrift 669 sw3d 282cited
State v. Vandergrift, 669 S.W.3d 282
Holdings
Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.
Issue: Whether the State's notice of appeal was timely filed under section 547.200.4.
No; the State's notice of appeal was filed seven days after the trial court's order, two days beyond the five-day statutory deadline, rendering the appeal untimely and depriving the appellate court of jurisdiction.
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
State v. Harris(2023)
Supreme Court of MissouriOctober 3, 2023#SC99977
State of Missouri, Appellant, vs. Amanda M. Mire, Respondent.(2025)
Supreme Court of MissouriNovember 4, 2025#SC100967
Henry L. Ward vs. State of Missouri(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictJanuary 28, 2025#WD86338
State of Missouri vs. Larry Daniel Brashier(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District#WD86602
State of Missouri ex rel. Catherine Hanaway, Relator, v. Honorable Ryan J. Helfrich, Judge of Franklin County, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED113594
State of Missouri vs. Craig Dalton Coward(2024)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District#WD87017