State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Dennis Bell, Defendant/Appellant.
Decision date: UnknownED81468
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Dennis Bell, Defendant/
- Respondent
- State of Missouri, Plaintiff/
Judges
- Trial Court Judge
- Linda Hamlett
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. Dennis Bell, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: ED81468 Handdown Date: 09/10/2002 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Warren County, Hon. Keith Sutherland Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Michael S. Wright Opinion Summary: Dennis Bell appeals from orders denying his motion to disqualify the circuit judge, denying his motion for change of venue, and appointing Associate Circuit Judge Linda Hamlett. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: There is no final, appealable judgment where no judgment and sentence have been entered and the defendant is merely attempting to appeal from various interlocutory orders. Citation: Opinion Author: Lawrence E. Mooney, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan and R. Dowd, Jr., JJ., concur. Opinion: Dennis Bell, the defendant, appeals from orders denying his motion to disqualify the circuit judge, denying his motion for change of venue, and appointing Associate Circuit Judge Linda Hamlett. Because there is no final, appealable judgment to invoke this court's jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal. There is no right to an appeal without statutory authority. State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. banc 1994). In criminal cases, a defendant may only appeal in "all cases of final judgment rendered upon any indictment or
information." Section 547.070, RSMo 2000. In addition, a criminal judgment is final for purposes of appeal when the judgment and sentence are entered. State v. Welch, 865 S.W.2d 434, 435 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). Here, the defendant has never been convicted of a crime and no judgment and sentence have been entered. Rather, he is attempting to appeal from various interlocutory orders entered in his criminal case, which is still pending in the circuit court. Without a final, appealable judgment, this court is without jurisdiction. We have a responsibility to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte. Fischer v. City of Washington, 55 S.W.3d 372, 377 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). We directed the defendant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. In his response to the order, the defendant offered no statutory authority to support his appeal. Instead, he asserts it is necessary for this court to review the circuit court's rulings to protect his rights. We note that there may be a method to review a ruling on the disqualification of a judge, but appeal without a final judgment is not one of them. See, e.g., State ex rel. Stubblefield v. Bader, 66 S.W.3d 741 (Mo. banc 2002) (review by petition for writ of prohibition). The 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
- RSMo § 547.070cited
Section 547.070, RSMo
Cases
- state v welch 865 sw2d 434cited
State v. Welch, 865 S.W.2d 434
- stubblefield v bader 66 sw3d 741cited
Stubblefield v. Bader, 66 S.W.3d 741
- there is no right to an appeal without statutory authority state v williams 871 sw2d 450cited
There is no right to an appeal without statutory authority. State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450
- we have a responsibility to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte fischer v city of washington 55 sw3d 372cited
We have a responsibility to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte. Fischer v. City of Washington, 55 S.W.3d 372
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.