State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Timothy Dean, Defendant/Appellant.
Decision date: Unknown
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.
Syllabus
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District Case Style: State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Timothy Dean, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: 22820 Handdown Date: 11/22/1999 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Butler County, Hon. W. Robert Cope Counsel for Appellant: Irene Karns Counsel for Respondent: Rebecca Martin Rivers Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Kenneth W. Shrum, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crow, P.J., concurs. Parrish, J., concurs in separate opinion filed. Opinion: Timothy Dean (Defendant) was tried by the court without a jury on two counts of forgery, both class C felonies. Section 570.090.1(4) and .2, RSMo 1994. After hearing the evidence, the trial court took the case under advisement pending receipt of trial briefs from the lawyers. The docket sheet reflects that the briefs were timely filed, and on January 5, 1999, the lawyers were notified to appear "for decision" on January 12, 1999. On the appearance date, the trial judge found Defendant guilty on both counts and sentenced him to two concurrent one-year terms in the county jail(FN1) This appeal followed. Where a prerequisite to appellate-court jurisdiction is not met, the appellate court must raise the issue sua sponte. See State v. Clemmons, 416 S.W.2d 68, 70-71 (Mo. 1967). Such an issue appears here; accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. Under Rule 29.11(b) and (e),(FN2) Defendant had the right to file a motion for new trial within fifteen days after the trial court found him guilty. Rule 29.ll(c) provides that "[n]o judgment shall be rendered until the time for filing a motion for
new trial has expired." "The right to file a motion for a new trial is valuable, and may not be denied unless it is expressly waived, even in court-tried cases." State v. Braden, 864 S.W.2d 8, 9[2] (Mo.App. 1993). The record here is barren of any indication that Defendant waived his right to file a motion for new trial, yet the trial court purported to render judgment and sentence before the deadline passed. Missouri courts have repeatedly held that in such circumstances, any purported judgment and sentence is premature and void; consequently, there is no judgment from which to appeal. Braden, 855 S.W.2d at 9[1]; State v. DeGraffenreid, 855 S.W.2d 450, 451 (Mo.App. 1993); State v. Dieter, 840 S.W.2d 887 (Mo.App. 1992); State v. Goth, 792 S.W.2d 437, 438[2] (Mo.App. 1990); State v. Wren, 609 S.W.2d 480, 491[1,2] (Mo.App. 1980); State v. Collins, S.W.2d 320, 321[2] (Mo.App. 1979). Therefore, this court is without jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Braden, 864 S.W.2d at 9. In conformity with the procedure spelled out by this court in DeGraffenreid, 855 S.W.2d 450, and Dieter, 840 S.W.2d 887, we dismiss the appeal and remand the case to the trial court and direct the court to grant Defendant the opportunity to file a motion for new trial or to waive his right to do so. If the right is waived expressly or by passage of time, or if a motion for new trial is filed and denied, the trial court may thereafter sentence Defendant. Defendant will then have the right to appeal. Footnotes: FN1.The record on appeal contains no formal judgment. FN2.Rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (1999). Separate Opinion:
Concurring Opinion by Judge Parrish: I concur. I write separately to address the lack of a "formal judgment"
in the record on appeal. See n. 1 of the principal opinion. No appeal will lie until a judgment is final. Section 547.070, RSMo 1994. See State v. Stout, 960 S.W.2d 535, 536 (Mo.App. 1998). Until a written judgment is rendered, a trial court retains jurisdiction to modify a sentence. State v. Patterson, 959 S.W.2d 940, 941 (Mo.App. 1998); State v. Johnson, 864 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Mo.App. 1993); State v. Bulloch, 838
S.W.2d 510, 513 (Mo.App. 1992). Thus, until a judgment of conviction is reduced to writing, it is not final. Rule 30.04(a) specifies that the legal file component of the record on appeal shall "contain clearly reproduced exact copies of the indictment or information and other portions of the trial record previously reduced to written form." The rule identifies "the judgment and sentence" as an item "[t]he legal file shall always include." In the event that further proceedings in this case result in imposition of judgment and sentence, the judgment and sentence must be reduced to writing to be final. Should there be an appeal, the legal file component of the record on appeal must include a clearly reproduced exact copy of the written judgment and sentence. This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
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.