State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. Robert A. Dunn, Defendant/Appellant.
Decision date: August 19, 2014ED101101
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
STATE OF MISSOURI, ) No. ED101101 ) Plaintiff/Respondent, ) ) vs. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Charles County ROBERT A. DUNN, ) No. 1311-CR03752-01 ) Defendant/Appellant. ) Filed: August 19, 2014 )
Robert A. Dunn (Appellant) was convicted of driving while intoxicated. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Appellant on probation for two years. Appellant has now filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction. This Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant did not file a response. We dismiss the appeal. In criminal appeals, section 547.070, RSMo 2000, limits the right of appeal to final judgments. In criminal cases, a 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). However, where imposition of sentence is not entered, but is suspended, the judgment is not final and a defendant may not appeal it. State v. Lynch, 679 S.W.2d 858, 860 (Mo. banc 1984); See also, State v. Larson, 79 S.W.3d 891 (Mo. banc 2002). Because the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, there is no final, appealable judgment.
2 Where no final, appealable judgment exists, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. State v. Moore, 352 S.W.3d 392, 398 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final, appealable judgment.
__________________________________ ANGELA T. QUIGLESS, CHIEF JUDGE
Lisa Van Amburg, J., and Philip M. Hess, J., Concur.
Related Opinions
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, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261
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.