Ott Law Firm

State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Resondent, v. Mahir Mohammed, Defendant/Appellant.

Decision date: UnknownED83335

Parties & Roles

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.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar criminal law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

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: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Resondent, v. Mahir Mohammed, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: ED83335 Handdown Date: 04/06/2004 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Joan L. Moriarty Counsel for Appellant: Edgar Edward Lim Counsel for Respondent: Andrea Kaye Spillars Opinion Summary: Mahir Mohammed (Defendant) appeals from the order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea after he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Defendant lacks a final, appealable judgment where the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on probation. Citation: Opinion Author: Sherri B. Sullivan, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Mooney and Draper III, JJ., concur. Opinion: Mahir Mohammed (Defendant) appeals from the order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea after he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Because there is no final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the appeal. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Defendant on probation for five years. Defendant subsequently sought to withdraw his guilty plea, contending his attorney did not tell him that his guilty plea would affect his immigration status. The trial court denied this motion and

Defendant appealed. This Court has a duty to determine sua sponte whether it has jurisdiction. Williams v. ESI Mail Pharmacy Serv., Inc. , 103 S.W.3d 848 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). We issued an order directing Defendant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Defendant has failed to file a response. In criminal cases, the right of appeal is limited to final judgments. Section 547.070 RSMo 2000. A trial court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea under Supreme Court Rule 29.07(d) where the imposition of sentence has been suspended is not a final, appealable judgment. State v. Larson , 79 S.W.3d 891, 893 (Mo. banc 2002). Here, the court suspended imposition of Defendant's sentence. As a result, there is no final, appealable judgment. The appropriate remedy for seeking review of the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea when the imposition of sentence is suspended is by a writ of mandamus. Id. at 894. Defendant's appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final, 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.

Statutes

Rules

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

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.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,374 words
Read opinion

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

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.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,516 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

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.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam3,993 words
Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

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.

Read opinion

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976

affirmed

Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.

Criminal LawCivil Litigationper_curiam1,670 words
Read opinion