STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent vs. CHARLES G. HAWTHORNE, Defendant-Appellant
Decision date: February 19, 2009SD29036
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- CHARLES G. HAWTHORNE, Defendant-
- Respondent
- STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-
Judges
- Opinion Author
- JOHN E. PARRISH
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
1
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Plaintiff-Respondent ) ) No. SD29036 ) CHARLES G. HAWTHORNE, ) Filed: February 19, 2009 ) Defendant-Appellant )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY
Honorable Mark A. Powell, Associate Circuit Judge
APPEAL DISMISSED
Charles G. Hawthorne undertakes to appeal this court-tried criminal case. The appeal must be dismissed. Rule 30.04 prescribes what is required in the record on appeal that must be filed in the appeal of a criminal case. The record on appeal is divided into two components, the legal file and the transcript. Rule 30.04(a). "The legal file component of the record on appeal must include a copy of the judgment and sentence. Rule 30.04(a). Rule 29.07(c) requires that a judgment of conviction 'set forth the plea, the verdict or findings, and the adjudication and sentence.'" State v. Nenninger, 50 S.W.3d 368, 369 (Mo.App. 2001). See also City of Neosho
2 v. Doyle, 52 S.W.3d 651 (Mo.App. 2001); State v. Miner, 606 S.W.2d 448 (Mo.App. 1980). The record on appeal in this case does not include a final judgment. The appeal is dismissed.
JOHN E. PARRISH, Judge Lynch, C.J., and Rahmeyer, J., concur
Appellant's attorney – David B. Smith Respondent's attorney – Darrell L. Moore, Joseph E. Knipp
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 29.07cited
Rule 29.07
- Rule 30.04cited
Rule 30.04
Cases
- state v miner 606 sw2d 448cited
State v. Miner, 606 S.W.2d 448
- state v nenninger 50 sw3d 368cited
State v. Nenninger, 50 S.W.3d 368
Related Opinions
Other opinions in the same practice area.
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, v. Elizabeth M. Speer, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113172
The court reversed defendant's convictions for second-degree property damage and fourth-degree assault because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate Faretta hearing and failed to ensure a written waiver of counsel was entered prior to trial, as required by Missouri law. Although the defendant did not preserve the issue by objecting at trial, the court found the error must be reviewed because the failure to conduct a proper Faretta hearing is a constitutional violation that cannot be waived.