State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Craig J. Morrison, Defendant/Appellant.
Decision date: UnknownED81990
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Craig J. Morrison, Defendant/
- Respondent
- State of Missouri, Plaintiff/
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: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Craig J. Morrison, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: ED81990 Handdown Date: 01/21/2003 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. David Lee Vincent, III Counsel for Appellant: Craig J. Morrison, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Thomas A. Dittmeier Opinion Summary: Craig J. Morrison appeals from the judgment and sentence entered for driving while revoked. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Five holds: The court sentenced Morrison before his time period for filing a motion for new trial had expired and, therefore, the judgment is void and there is no final, appealable judgment. Citation: Opinion Author: Lawrence E. Mooney, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan, J., and Dowd, Jr., J., concur. Opinion: On July 29, 2002, the trial court found the defendant Craig J. Morrison guilty of driving while revoked. That same day, the trial court entered judgment against the defendant and sentenced him to six months in the St. Louis County Department of Justice Services. The court suspended execution of the sentence and placed the defendant on probation for two years. The defendant now appeals from the judgment and sentence. Because we find the judgment was void, we dismiss the defendant's appeal. The defendant had a right to file a motion for new trial within fifteen days after the trial court found him guilty. Rule
29.11(b) & (e). No judgment can be rendered until the time for filing the motion for new trial has expired. Rule 29.11(c). The right to file a motion for new trial is a valuable right and cannot be denied unless expressly waived, even in court-tried cases. State v. Braden, 864 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). Any judgment and sentence rendered by the trial court before the period for filing the motion for new trial expired is premature and void. Id. Here, the trial court sentenced the defendant on the same day he was found guilty, before the time period for filing the motion for new trial expired. The defendant did not expressly waive his right to file a motion for new trial either. Indeed, the defendant filed a timely motion to set aside the verdict on August 9, 2002. The judgment and sentence rendered by the court is void and there is no final judgment from which the defendant can appeal. State v. Goth, 792 S.W.2d 437, 438 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990). 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. Neither party filed a response to our order. We dismiss the defendant's appeal and remand the cause so that the trial court may sentence the defendant in accordance with Rule 29. Appeal dismissed. 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.
Rules
- Rule 29cited
Rule 29
- Rule 29.11cited
Rule 29.11
Cases
- state v braden 864 sw2d 8cited
State v. Braden, 864 S.W.2d 8
- state v goth 792 sw2d 437cited
State v. Goth, 792 S.W.2d 437
- we have a duty to sua sponte determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal state v wilson 15 sw3d 71cited
We have a duty to sua sponte determine whether we have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. State v. Wilson, 15 S.W.3d 71
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
State of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Gerald W. Hauser, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.(2003)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED81146
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Timothy Dean, Defendant/Appellant.(1999)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
City of Creve Coeur, Respondent v. Order of Elks, St. Louis Lodge No. 9, Howard Manschreck, Trustee, Appellant(2004)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED83125
City of Byrnes Mill, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Earl G. Rice, Jr., Defendant/Appellant.(2004)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED83558
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Loretta Wilson, Defendant/Appellant.(2000)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District