State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mitchell Lawyer, Defendant/Appellant.

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. Mitchell Lawyer, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: ED88621 Handdown Date: 12/19/2006 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Timothy Wilson Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Victor J. Melenbrink Opinion Summary: Mitchell Lawyer appeals pro se from the order denying his Rule 29.05 motion, filed March 14, 2003, to reduce as excessive the sentence that he received on August 6, 1991, for first-degree assault and armed criminal action. AFFIRMED. Division Four holds: The trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on Lawyer's Rule 29.05 motion to reduce his sentence after the sentence was entered. Citation: Opinion Author: PER CURIAM Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Richter, P.J., Knaup Crane and Sullivan, JJ., concur. Opinion: Defendant appeals pro se from the order denying his Rule 29.05 motion, filed March 14, 2003, to reduce as excessive the sentence that he received on August 6, 1991, for first degree assault and armed criminal action.

(FN1) We affirm. In a criminal prosecution, the judgment becomes final at the time the trial court pronounces sentence. State ex rel. Wagner v. Ruddy, 582 S.W.2d 692, 694 (Mo. banc 1979). The trial court exhausts its jurisdiction when it enters a judgment and sentence consistent with the law. Id. at 695; State v. Warden, 753 S.W.2d 63, 64 (Mo.App. 1988). Here, defendant's sentence was recorded by a docket entry on August 6, 1991. Having properly rendered and entered its final judgment, the trial court thereafter had no power to modify defendant's sentence pursuant to Rule 29.05. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's Rule 29.05 motion. See State v. Van Sickel, 726 S.W.2d 392, 392-93 (Mo.App. 1987). Affirmed. Footnotes: FN1. See State v. Lawyer, 890 S.W.2d 419 (Mo.App. 1995). Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.