State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Derrick McKinzie, 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.
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, Respondent, v. Derrick McKinzie, Appellant. Case Number: 72984 Handdown Date: 04/07/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Thomas J. Frawley Counsel for Appellant: Henry W. Cummings Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris, III, and Jill C. LaHue Opinion Summary: Derrick McKinzie appeals from the denial of probation and the execution of his seventeen-year sentence following his removal from a long-term cocaine treatment program pursuant to Section 217.362, RSMo 1994. Specifically, he challenges the denial of a hearing following his removal from the treatment program. APPEAL DISMISSED. Division Four holds: The denial of probation and execution of sentence pursuant to Section 217.362.4 upon an offender's failure to successfully complete the long-term cocaine treatment program is not subject to appellate review. Citation: Opinion Author: Robert G. Dowd, Jr., Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: Appellant, Derrick McKinzie, appeals from the denial of probation and the execution of his seventeen-year sentence following his removal from a long-term cocaine treatment program pursuant to Section 217.362 RSMo 1994.(FN1) In its brief to this court, the State urges that this appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We agree.
On November 8, 1993, Appellant pled guilty to the charge of distribution of a controlled substance near schools in violation of Section 195.214, a class A felony punishable upon conviction under Section 558.011.1(1). On January 14, 1994, Appellant received a Suspended Imposition of Sentence and was placed on two years' probation. On March 28, 1996, upon revocation of Appellant's probation, the court sentenced Appellant to seventeen years' imprisonment. Pursuant to Section 217.362, the court ordered Appellant to serve two years in a long-term, institutional cocaine treatment program. Section 217.362, "Chronic nonviolent offenders with cocaine addictions not convicted of dangerous felonies--long-term program for treatment" states in part:
- . . . Notwithstanding any other provisions of law to the contrary, except as provided for in
section 558.019, RSMo, if an offender is eligible and there is adequate space, the court may sentence a person to the program which shall consist of institutional drug treatment for a period of twenty-four months, as well as a term of incarceration. Execution of the offender's term of incarceration shall be suspended pending completion of said program. . . .
- If it is determined by the department that the offender has not successfully completed the
program, or that the offender is not cooperatively participating in the program, the offender shall be removed from the program and the court shall be advised. Failure of an offender to complete the program shall cause the offender to serve the sentence prescribed by the court and void the right to be considered for probation on this sentence. Pursuant to this section, the court received a report from the Missouri Department of Corrections, Board of Probation and Parole, informing the court that Appellant had been discharged from the treatment program. The report also recommended that Appellant's seventeen-year sentence be executed. Pursuant to this report, the court denied Appellant probation and ordered the execution of his sentence. Appellant appeals from this order. Because there is no right to appeal a trial judge's decision to deny probation, this court is without appellate jurisdiction to review the merits. State v. Williams, 871 S.W.2d 450, 452 (Mo. 1994). Moreover, while Appellant is specifically complaining about his denial of a hearing prior to his removal from the treatment program, Section 217.362.4 does not require a hearing. Instead, this section mandates that "Failure of an offender to complete the program shall cause the offender to serve the sentence prescribed by the court and void the right to be considered for probation on this sentence." Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Footnotes: FN1. All statutory references are to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise cited. Separate Opinion: None 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, 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.