State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Mitchell Lawyer, Defendant/Appellant.
Decision date: March 14, 2003ED88621
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Mitchell Lawyer, Defendant/
- Respondent
- State of Missouri, Plaintiff/
Disposition
Affirmed
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. 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.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 29.05cited
Rule 29.05
Cases
- see state v lawyer 890 sw2d 419cited
See State v. Lawyer, 890 S.W.2d 419
- see state v van sickel 726 sw2d 392cited
See State v. Van Sickel, 726 S.W.2d 392
- state ex rel wagner v ruddy 582 sw2d 692cited
State ex rel. Wagner v. Ruddy, 582 S.W.2d 692
- state v warden 753 sw2d 63cited
State v. Warden, 753 S.W.2d 63
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.