Ott Law Firm

State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Candy Pressley, Defendant/Appellant.

Decision date: UnknownED81729

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/Respondent v. Candy Pressley, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: ED81729 Handdown Date: 01/21/2003 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Mark D. Seigel Counsel for Appellant: Joel J. Schwartz Counsel for Respondent: Kelly Clarkin and Andrew W. Hassell Opinion Summary: Candy Pressley appeals from an order denying her motion to reinstate an order terminating probation, which is essentially a motion for an early termination of her probation. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: There is no right to appeal from the trial court's refusal to end probation early before its term has expired and, therefore, there is no final, appealable judgment. Citation: Opinion Author: Lawrence E. Mooney, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Crahan, J., and Dowd, Jr., J., concur. Opinion: Candy Pressley, the defendant, appeals from an order denying her motion to reinstate an order terminating probation, which is essentially a motion for an early termination of her probation. Because we find this is not a final, appealable judgment, we dismiss her appeal. The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of forgery. On June 3, 1999, the trial court sentenced her to two concurrent terms of seven years' imprisonment. However, the trial court suspended execution of the sentence and placed

the defendant on probation for five years. On June 20, 2002, the trial court granted her motion to terminate probation, but set that order aside the next day.(FN1) The court then rescheduled the motion for a later hearing and denied it on July 11,

  1. On August 6, 2002, the defendant filed her "Motion to Reinstate Order Terminating Probation." The trial court

issued an order denying this motion on August 22, 2002. The defendant appeals from this order. We have a duty to sua sponte determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. State v. Wilson, 15 S.W.3d 71, 72 (Mo. App. S.D. 2000). We issued an order directing the parties to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. The defendant failed to file a response. A final judgment in a criminal case occurs only when a sentence is entered. State v. Lynch, 679 S.W.2d 858, 859- 60 (Mo. banc 1984). Probation is not part of the sentence and consequently, there is no right to appeal a trial court's decision to grant or deny probation. State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994). In addition, there is no right to appeal the terms and conditions of an order of probation. Id. It follows that a defendant does not have the right to appeal from the trial court's refusal to end probation early before its term has expired. The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Footnotes: FN1.We do not express any opinion about whether the trial court had jurisdiction to set aside its order terminating probation. We are only addressing the appealability of the order denying the defendant's motion to reinstate an order terminating probation. However, it would appear that the trial court may have lost jurisdiction over the case when it entered its order to terminate probation. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 927 S.W. 2d 903, 906 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996); State v. Bachman, 675 S.W. 2d 41, 46 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984). The defendant may have a remedy by way of writ to address this issue. 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.

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